The Chicago Experiment: a study in how to build a team

[High5]

True. You would think people understood etiquette too. But mods still have to remind people don't they? *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*

It's funny how I've repeated these things for the 10 or 12 years I've been forum posting... (We're boring, we're stuck in mediocrity, we need to tank, Chris Paul, Luol Deng, Brandon Roy, fire Woodson, move the ball, etc., etc., etc.) and I'm always the "ZOMG" idoit, "ZOMG shut up already", "ZOMG UR WRONG." And you will still find people that disagree with the downright obvious. I also wonder if there was ever only one original topic ever started...how many threads we'd have. How many times can we trade the same player (Marvin) for the same kind of player?

More than all that, I wonder if you bother to read all that or just complain because it's there. I'll help you out though and I'll tell you something else everybody already knows! You don't have to read it!

*gasp*

You also don't even have to know I posted it. Here...let me show you how that works....

(Oh wait...I need to learn how to do it myself first!)

You always play the "I was right but nobody listened" card when nearly every other poster on here has been saying the exact same things. You aren't really going to act like there was much opposition to any of the stuff you mentioned (Paul, Roy, Woodson, etc.) are you? You're way too dramatic in opinion. But do whatever makes you happy, I won't say anything else.

[Diesel]

How Chicago built there team is to luck out and win the #1 lottery pick in year where there was a bonafide star player availble.

Amen.

Take away Rose and Chicago is one of the the sorriest team in the east.

[coachx]

Chicago had two #1 picks and three #2 picks over a 9 year span.

The Atlanta Hawks have never had the #1 pick ever !

[sasuke]

Lucking out and getting the number 1 pick in the draft with your hometown superstar prospect on the board goes a long way. Everything else they did from there is gravy. Noah is questionable as a piece, he's really no different than Varejao for the Cavs all those years and they had no choice but to take him given the absolute lack of anything behind him. They traded Chandler ages ago, blew money on Ben Wallace, traded for Tyrus Thomas over Aldridge, were lucky to dump John Salmons, let Hinrich and Ben Gordon go for nothing, dropped a draft pick on James Johnson and then blew their free agency money on Boozer yes but also Kyle Korver and Ronnie Brewer. Make no mistake, outside of Rose and that team would be going nowhere. There's very good reason why he's considered a MVP candidate and considered arguably the best PG in the league even over the two that we passed over. If hoping for the number 1 pick and a once in a generation talent also being available in the draft is the idea of a model to follow then you can count me out because the chances of that happening are never in a teams favor.

:lol6:

[niremetal]

Chicago had two #1 picks and three #2 picks over a 9 year span.

The Atlanta Hawks have never had the #1 pick ever !

Yeah we did. We drafted David Thompson in 1975. How could you possibly forget that? I mean, he was our Pau Gasol for the 1970s. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness check out our draft register. Draft futility is nothing new. It actually started when they were the Tri-Cities Blackhawks:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/draft.html

- Milwaukee Hawks used the #1 overall pick in 1952 on Mark Workman, who (like Thompson) never suited up as a Hawk. Coulda had Clyde Lovellette, one of the top players of the 50's.

- St. Louis Hawks then used the #1 overall pick in 1955 on [Richard] Ricketts. Coulda had Hall of Famer Maurice Stokes instead. I bet Stokes woulda preferred that too - maybe then he wouldn't have suffered one of the worst on-court accidents in sports history.

But here's my favorite. The Hawks drafted both Cousy (in 1950) and Russell (in 1956), neither of whom ever played a game as a Hawk (I'm sensing a pattern here). They then sold Cousy and traded Russell. Admittedly, they got Cliff Hagan out of the Russell trade, and Hagan proved to be the second big-time option alongside Pettit that the Hawks needed to win a title in '58, but still. There would have been no Celtics dynasty if the Hawks had both Pettit and Russell (and Cousy!!).

That being said, I don't think the Hawks ever had a #1 pick in a year where there was a consensus #1 pick, and we haven't had a #1 pick at all since Thompson. Chicago had 2 in 10 years.

Edited February 4, 2011 by niremetal

[coachx]

Yeah we did. We drafted David Thompson in 1975. How could you possibly forget that? I mean, he was our Pau Gasol for the 1970s. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness check out our draft register. Draft futility is nothing new. It actually started when they were the Tri-Cities Blackhawks:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/draft.html

- Milwaukee Hawks used the #1 overall pick in 1952 on Mark Workman, who (like Thompson) never suited up as a Hawk. Coulda had Clyde Lovellette, one of the top players of the 50's.

- St. Louis Hawks then used the #1 overall pick in 1955 on [Richard] Ricketts. Coulda had Hall of Famer Maurice Stokes instead. I bet Stokes woulda preferred that too - maybe then he wouldn't have suffered one of the worst on-court accidents in sports history.

But here's my favorite. The Hawks drafted both Cousy (in 1950) and Russell (in 1956), neither of whom ever played a game as a Hawk (I'm sensing a pattern here). They then sold Cousy and traded Russell. Admittedly, they got Cliff Hagan out of the Russell trade, and Hagan proved to be the second big-time option alongside Pettit that the Hawks needed to win a title in '58, but still. There would have been no Celtics dynasty if the Hawks had both Pettit and Russell (and Cousy!!).

That being said, I don't think the Hawks ever had a #1 pick in a year where there was a consensus #1 pick, and we haven't had a #1 pick at all since Thompson. Chicago had 2 in 10 years.

I said "Atlanta Hawks" not Miwaulkee or St Louise Hawks. The Bill Russell thing should be commonly known to most Hawks fans who are not kids but was not in the Atlanta era none the less.

I did not even think about David Thompason since he never played a game but 1975 was part of the Atlanta era o the franchise.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And even when the Hawks had their best chance to get the #1 pick, look who went in the top 10:

2001

- Kwame Brown

- Tyson Chandler

- Pau Gasol ( whom we selected but traded for an all-star in Shareef )

- Eddy Curry

- Jason Richardson

- Shane Battier

- Eddie Griffin

- Desagna Diop

- Rodney White

- Joe Johnson

LOL . . I mean dang. You mean if we'd had the #1 pick, we'd probably taken Tyson Chandler or Kwame Brown?

In that 2001 draft, this is arguably the actual top 10 ( the actual order can be disputed )

- Pau Gasol

- Joe Johnson

- Gilbert Arenas

- Tony Parker

- Jason Richardson

- Zach Randolph

- Gerald Wallace

- Richard Jefferson

- Shane Battier

- Troy Murphy

So the Hawks eventually got arguably the 2nd best player in that draft.

Of course, we messed it up in 2005. No need to revisit that.

But what about 2007? Who do we pick if we had the #1 pick?

GREG ODEN

No way we'd take Durant, with all of our big man problems and the plethora of wings we had back then.

How disasterous would that have been? So once again, we arguably got the 2nd best player in that draft, in Al Horford.

It definitely takes luck to get that franchise player AND have him pan out to live up to expectations.

Chicago hasn't won a dang thing yet. And they are a mediocre road team as of right now. They have to be taken serious, but like with us, you can't anoint them with anything yet.

Everyone thought they did it right a few years ago, with the Gordon - Hinrich - Chandler - Curry core players. But that only lasted 2 seasons before they imploded.

No way would I want to go back to "sucking". I would much rather watch and hope a good ATL team turns the corner, instead of wishing upon a "star" to fall in ATL's lap.

In other words . . . I'd much rather have Phoenix's history of good but not great teams ( minus the Barkley led Suns ), than to have the Clipper's history of futility and hoping a megastar falls in their lap.

And we'll see if Blake Griffin can be that dude, and actually be that savior for them. But he gets no credit until he actually leads them somewhere.

[benhillboy]

If we can come up with a way to totally hide Bibby from Rose on defense, I'm confident we'll sweep Chicago next month. If not, he'll drop 90 in two overtime wins.

Edited February 4, 2011 by benhillboy

[frankthetank966]

Noah is so overrated its unbelievable.

[Wretch]

Phoenix has had a couple of trips to the WCF - I'd like to have that too (let alone as far as Barlkey took them). Regardless of which set of Chicago moves we decide to focus on, or whether or not any of us put any value into luck, the bottom line remains that the method that we use does not work. The proof is in the post season results - which OMG I CAN'T SEEM TO ZOMG STOP REPEATING. Ironically, the last playoff result was like a big, rotten, cherry on the crap cake.

Start over and try to get the number one pick?

(...)

That would be stupid. There might be one 13 year old on this site that thinks such a strategy is going to work. Equally stupid is (brace yourself, I'm about to repeat something) doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The only clubs that benefit from continuity are those who have already won (Lakers, Spurs, Celtics, etc.). What does continuity do for us? Anyone remember the record setting hot start in 1997? Anyone remember getting mad at all the sports writers saying it was just "familiarity" that was giving us an early edge? Anyone remember the rest of the season:

The Hawks began [the 1997/98 season] with a franchise record 11-game winning streak, tying the fifth-best start in NBA history. The rest of the season didn't live up to the first month's promise, however, as Atlanta posted a 5-8 mark in December followed by a 9-8 January, which led to a 29-20 mark after the All-Star break. After finishing fifth overall in the conference, the Hawks solidified a first-round playoff matchup with the Charlotte Hornets, a team Atlanta had swept, 4-0, during the regular season. The playoffs didn't hold true to form, as the Hornets surprised the Hawks, winning the series, 3-1, and moving on to face eventual champion Chicago in the second round.

The real question, while we hope for JUST an ECF is whether or not you believe this core can do it. It would take a lot of IFs for me to believe that. If JJ this. If Horford that. If Smoove this. If Marvin that.

As for luck...

It's pointless debating it, because it is what it is. But at the same time, you cannot discount it. Did the Lakers luck up with Kobe? Absolutely. With Gasol? Absolutely. With Shaq? Possibly. Bulls? Twice now. Orlando? Well, they stunk and got the #1 ping-pong-ball pick didn't they? Miami? Pfft. lol Cleveland in the LeBron years? Yes. San Antonio? Two of the best 7 footers to ever play? Yepity yepper.

Which teams had absolutely no FA/Trade/Draft "luck", but went on to do something significant? Much fewer than those who managed to find some fortune. It takes a lot of things, but if you want fans, wins, ECF's, championships, then you need to luck up and get your hands on a real player or two. Lucky draft, surprise sleeper pick, lopsided trade, unexpected breakout player, an act of God sending a lightning bolt to possess Marvin Williams.

Something.

(Just don't put it in your pocket...that's your lucky quarter.)

[CBAreject]

Phoenix has had a couple of trips to the WCF - I'd like to have that too (let alone as far as Barlkey took them). Regardless of which set of Chicago moves we decide to focus on, or whether or not any of us put any value into luck, the bottom line remains that the method that we use does not work. The proof is in the post season results - which OMG I CAN'T SEEM TO ZOMG STOP REPEATING. Ironically, the last playoff result was like a big, rotten, cherry on the crap cake.

Start over and try to get the number one pick?

(...)

That would be stupid. There might be one 13 year old on this site that thinks such a strategy is going to work. Equally stupid is (brace yourself, I'm about to repeat something) doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The only clubs that benefit from continuity are those who have already won (Lakers, Spurs, Celtics, etc.). What does continuity do for us? Anyone remember the record setting hot start in 1997? Anyone remember getting mad at all the sports writers saying it was just "familiarity" that was giving us an early edge? Anyone remember the rest of the season:

The real question, while we hope for JUST an ECF is whether or not you believe this core can do it. It would take a lot of IFs for me to believe that. If JJ this. If Horford that. If Smoove this. If Marvin that.

As for luck...

It's pointless debating it, because it is what it is. But at the same time, you cannot discount it. Did the Lakers luck up with Kobe? Absolutely. With Gasol? Absolutely. With Shaq? Possibly. Bulls? Twice now. Orlando? Well, they stunk and got the #1 ping-pong-ball pick didn't they? Miami? Pfft. lol Cleveland in the LeBron years? Yes. San Antonio? Two of the best 7 footers to ever play? Yepity yepper.

Which teams had absolutely no FA/Trade/Draft "luck", but went on to do something significant? Much fewer than those who managed to find some fortune. It takes a lot of things, but if you want fans, wins, ECF's, championships, then you need to luck up and get your hands on a real player or two. Lucky draft, surprise sleeper pick, lopsided trade, unexpected breakout player, an act of God sending a lightning bolt to possess Marvin Williams.

Something.

(Just don't put it in your pocket...that's your lucky quarter.)

Hey Wretch, don't listen to 'em. I personally think you're funny with all the "ZOMG" business. My point with this thread, which has now been discredited as "pointless" is that I approve of the way Chicago has built since 2007. Sure they got lucky, but the point is they drafted key positions first and then signed a big FA after the nucleus was in place. We should've done that, even if we never got so lucky as to get a #1 pick. What everyone is ignoring here is that Chicago did take some risks in unloading serviceable talent for nothing! So yeah "they got lucky to get someone to take Salmons and Hinrich". Maybe, but they still tried and SUCCEEDED, and they the right piece at the perfect time in Boozer. Sure, they'd have rather had one of the big 4 FA's, and if they had, they'd be a championship contender. As it is, they're closer than we've been to contending for a title since 1987.

I really don't understand why people defend the worst franchise in the history of professional sports. I love the Hawks, but I also hate them, and they deserve my wrath and yours too. We blew up a mediocre team because it was mediocre and made a decade of stupid draftings, signings, and tradings just to get back to being mediocre again. We're not just any 3rd seed (and yes this year likely 5th). We're a 3rd seed that never stands a chance to make the conference finals...not even close. Two straight years we barely survived an opening series with a far inferior opponent and then got just destroyed in the 2nd round. When we were the #1 seed in 1994, we stood no chance of making it to the finals because we traded the only passionate player we had for the most passionless player in the league. The most satisfying playoff run in the last 25 years or so was when we took Boston to 7 games in round one. That's sadly it. Prior to that you have to go back to the Nique-Bird wars.

I'm going to hold onto a futile shred of hope that the team pulls off some miracle, but the sad truth that we all know is that to ever win a championship we will have to take some huge risks with our roster. That may require blowing it up again, but then maybe we don't have to go so far. Nash would make things awfully interesting, but if we can't make such a major addition, we're probably going to have to get bad again before we'll ever be a contender. I've heard it said that "the team is basically set" and that we just need some MLE player, but that's only true if your goal was mediocrity. As it is, this team can comfortably lock up the 4th-6th seed for the next 3-5 years, but that's exactly what we had before we blew it up a decade ago. I want a shot. The only player we have that is worthy of building around is Horford, and he's just a complementary player.

So yeah, I'm saying that we're likely going to have to "ZOMG tank" again before we make the ECF. I'm not taking down thomas the tank engine until we get to the ECF. Then I will officially say it is no longer in our interests to tank.

[Wretch]

So much truth in what you just said, but I have to highlight this:

We blew up a mediocre team because it was mediocre and made a decade of stupid draftings, signings, and tradings just to get back to being mediocre again.

LOL...ZOMG! It's just so....funny because you said something long ago about building a car with a bunch of hubcaps that became my signature. DUDE...that was the DAMN truth. lol You need a damn engine or you ain't going NOWHERE. If we get put out of the 1st round (or swept in the second), this might become my new signature.

Listening to people and getting ruffled?

No. Not at all. Not in life not on a message board. Maybe many moons ago, I would listen to that. And argue... Man, English, writing, analysis, people? All of that is my forte. I'm doing it right now and I'm drunk as a skunk. I could do it for days on end and strike nerves that make people want to jump through the screen and fight me. *yawn* It's not fun anymore.

All the arguements against tanking the season. All the arguements for Chris Paul. All the little blips about Loul Deng and Brandon Roy. When the Pacers had to clinch the playoffs for us, I was calling for Woodson's head. I know this team. I know what it needs. I know what it could be. I knew where we were messing up...as we were messing up and I knew it back in the 90's when the guys in my unit called my team "boring."

It's like...you see someone standing in the fire, you're going to keep yelling at them until they move. Same principle. I repeat the same sh!t because it's like...how the hell do the millionaires who own this thing NOT see this!?

The truth is the truth. It doesn't change. You can dress it up. Spin it. Make it interesting with stats, opinion, whatever. But in the end, the truth hands you the worst sweep in the history of the NBA. The truth keeps the fans away from the stadium. The truth can not be silenced. You've GOT TO get your hands on a player if you want to win. It's hard because nobody knows who they are in the draft (usually) and once everyone knows who they are, they won't let them go. So you luck up in a trade or FAcy. If you're really lucky, then you draft him.

Where does that leave us?

My hope is that we're really not as cheap as we appear to be. I'm HOPING that what the ASG (and Sund) says is the truth and not spin. I hope Sund isn't a puppet. I'm hoping for a strong playoffs and some upgrading in the offseason. AFTER the owners see where they stand with the new CBA. I've been through ALMOST making the ECF's for 25 years. Man...25 years. That's a lot of throwing shoes at the TV. That's a lot of watching the season end. That's a lot of wondering how far the team will go. Maybe that's new to some people and they have those butterflies I used to have - back when everything was possible at the beginnning of the season.

These cats will have to show me. Because my butterflies are dead. I don't want a team looking to get respect. I want a team that beats the brains out of teams and dances on the floor as the confetti falls.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Wretch

[Diesel]

The real point is that these days Championship building is done through trade not the draft.

Chicago haven't sniffed the 2nd round... and probably still won't.

But the last few Champions:

Boston= Big three.. KG/Allen were traded for..

LAL = Artest and Gasol were traded for.

The only other team that is noteworthy is Orlando. They didn't trade for their lineup until recently when they built around Howard.

That's how you build a championship team. What will happen in Chicago is either first round KO after first round KO... until they trade for what they need or they have been polishing Rose for somebody else.

[Wretch]

The real point is that these days Championship building is done through trade not the draft.

Chicago haven't sniffed the 2nd round... and probably still won't.

But the last few Champions:

Boston= Big three.. KG/Allen were traded for..

LAL = Artest and Gasol were traded for.

The only other team that is noteworthy is Orlando. They didn't trade for their lineup until recently when they built around Howard.

That's how you build a championship team. What will happen in Chicago is either first round KO after first round KO... until they trade for what they need or they have been polishing Rose for somebody else.

These days...? As in Boston you mean? I guess. I can't argue with that and I thought about that too (hell, throw Dallas into that pile). But if we were going to follow the Boston model, then we should have shipped Marvin, Smoove, and probably Chill the year before we made the playoffs. Honestly, the draft has never been the be all end all solution to winning a title - or winning big for that matter. I don't believe Chicago would have won without signing rodman. LA did not draft Kareem. Houston did not draft Drexler. Detroit would not have done it without Dumars taking a chance on guys people threw away (Billups, Wallace) or trades (Rip, Sheed).

It's hard to build a winner exclusively through the draft. Usually part of that core ends up being dealt or flat out walks. There's so much more to building a champion than getting the top pick (or a top pick) in the draft and expecting LeBron James. It has it's merits though which you cannot deny. Pretty much, the heart of every champion is someone they drafted - even the Celtics.

We've screwed that up though and we've also painted ourselves into a corner for holding onto this core for so long - thereby exposing them and their "potential." (Ironic now that I think about it given that you were the first one to pull Marvin's card). So.......

No superstar drafted for us.

No trade to swindle anyone on with Marvin.

No Chill to even trade with...oh wait, lol we did trade Chill. Pfft. I'm gonna do another shot just to that. lol

No capspace to luck up and sign a FA with.

So, even if the better plan in today's age is to trade talent to get to the top...we're screwed. Unless we trade somebody like...

ZOMG...don't say it...don't SAY IT! I paid GOOD MONEY FOR THIS SMOOVE JERSEY!!!!!

In Vino Veritas.....

BTW...LAL = Kobe Bryizzle

[Wretch]

And I'll say something else to while the LIKKA is talking. lol It's funny how we talk all this sh!t about these teams who end up in the ECF's, WCF's, Championships... OMG...they wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for (blazey-wakka-wakka-blazey-blah-blah-blah-blah-Charlie brown's teacher -womp waaaaa womp waaa waaaaa waaaamp).

And we talk all this BS, from the sidelines as our boys went home weeks ago. It doesn't matter to Chicago that Rose lucked up and ended up in their lap anymore than we care that we lucked up and landed Horford.

Oh snap kid (in my gritty, NY, B-Boy voice).

[HawksBalla]

The Hawks did draft a center in 2007, Horford.

The Hawks also drafted a point guard in 2007. Unfortunately, it was a complete and utter whiff.

The Hawks did sign a power forward in his prime. But Josh Smith isn't as consistent as Boozer.

The fact of the matter is that Hawks never got a player as good as Rose, or as good of a rebounder as Noah. The Bulls have had some solid picks and good personnel moves (Kyle Korver was a good get for them), while the Hawks missed completely on Law, the Slumlord, and Speedy Claxton just to name a few.

Oh, and don't forget the whole Marvin Williams debacle. Not that you could.

[CBAreject]

And I'll say something else to while the LIKKA is talking. lol It's funny how we talk all this sh!t about these teams who end up in the ECF's, WCF's, Championships... OMG...they wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for (blazey-wakka-wakka-blazey-blah-blah-blah-blah-Charlie brown's teacher -womp waaaaa womp waaa waaaaa waaaamp).

And we talk all this BS, from the sidelines as our boys went home weeks ago. It doesn't matter to Chicago that Rose lucked up and ended up in their lap anymore than we care that we lucked up and landed Horford.

Oh snap kid (in my gritty, NY, B-Boy voice).

I'm glad you mentioned dallas, because I now live in Dallas...nevermind the Durham business...finished med school there and moved on out. Dallas is mediocre as are we, but the thing I admire about the Mavs, is they have consistently tried to shake it up with trades, and that got them at least a finals appearance. They keep pushing the envelope. Acquiring Kidd and then chandler. They wont' win a title, but I admire how they have tried. They'll have to blow it up and deal dirk in the next 3 years.

The Hawks did draft a center in 2007, Horford.

The Hawks also drafted a point guard in 2007. Unfortunately, it was a complete and utter whiff.

The Hawks did sign a power forward in his prime. But Josh Smith isn't as consistent as Boozer.

The fact of the matter is that Hawks never got a player as good as Rose, or as good of a rebounder as Noah. The Bulls have had some solid picks and good personnel moves (Kyle Korver was a good get for them), while the Hawks missed completely on Law, the Slumlord, and Speedy Claxton just to name a few.

Oh, and don't forget the whole Marvin Williams debacle. Not that you could.

I cannot sit quietly by and let you people pretend like the Hawks got unlucky. Did we get as lucky as Chicago? No, but nobody else did, except for Orlando when they got Penny. We got good picks, but we wasted them on a bunch of wings. How can you now defend that? Are you honestly arguing that the Hawks are are well-managed, personnel-wise? Seriously? We're a huge joke. You draft big men and points, and you don't sign FA's to make you better until you're already too good to tank. That's how to build. There are exceptions, yes, but they are just that...exceptions, and they require special circumstances, such as Boston already had one superstar and had the possibliity to trade for 2 in the same offseason.

The real point is that these days Championship building is done through trade not the draft.

Chicago haven't sniffed the 2nd round... and probably still won't.

But the last few Champions:

Boston= Big three.. KG/Allen were traded for..

LAL = Artest and Gasol were traded for.

The only other team that is noteworthy is Orlando. They didn't trade for their lineup until recently when they built around Howard.

That's how you build a championship team. What will happen in Chicago is either first round KO after first round KO... until they trade for what they need or they have been polishing Rose for somebody else.

Diesel, you are basically going on record as saying Chicago will lose in the first round of the playoffs.

[Diesel]

These days...? As in Boston you mean? I guess. I can't argue with that and I thought about that too (hell, throw Dallas into that pile). But if we were going to follow the Boston model, then we should have shipped Marvin, Smoove, and probably Chill the year before we made the playoffs. Honestly, the draft has never been the be all end all solution to winning a title - or winning big for that matter. I don't believe Chicago would have won without signing rodman. LA did not draft Kareem. Houston did not draft Drexler. Detroit would not have done it without Dumars taking a chance on guys people threw away (Billups, Wallace) or trades (Rip, Sheed).

It's hard to build a winner exclusively through the draft. Usually part of that core ends up being dealt or flat out walks. There's so much more to building a champion than getting the top pick (or a top pick) in the draft and expecting LeBron James. It has it's merits though which you cannot deny. Pretty much, the heart of every champion is someone they drafted - even the Celtics.

We've screwed that up though and we've also painted ourselves into a corner for holding onto this core for so long - thereby exposing them and their "potential." (Ironic now that I think about it given that you were the first one to pull Marvin's card). So.......

No superstar drafted for us.

No trade to swindle anyone on with Marvin.

No Chill to even trade with...oh wait, lol we did trade Chill. Pfft. I'm gonna do another shot just to that. lol

No capspace to luck up and sign a FA with.

So, even if the better plan in today's age is to trade talent to get to the top...we're screwed. Unless we trade somebody like...

ZOMG...don't say it...don't SAY IT! I paid GOOD MONEY FOR THIS SMOOVE JERSEY!!!!!

In Vino Veritas.....

BTW...LAL = Kobe Bryizzle

Very well said. Gold star for you!!

[CBAreject]

Chicago haven't sniffed the 2nd round... and probably still won't.

What will happen in Chicago is either first round KO after first round KO... until they trade for what they need or they have been polishing Rose for somebody else.

:scratchhead:

BUMP

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

Let's not get carried away with the Bulls talk. Derrick Rose is a superstar. The Miami Heat have two superstars. Calls were a big reason the Bulls beat us. The Bulls will not be getting the calls they got this round next round.

The best thing the Bulls have going for them is they got the luck of the lottery ball. If they get the 2nd or 3rd pick they have OJ Mayo or Beasley and they are not a study of how to build a successful team.