I just re-read #4. He's saying the Bulls should be able to get Love for Gibson, McDermott and Mirotic. If you believe every rumor that you like the sound of, and I know you do, then the Bulls have already offered this deal to Minny and yet Love isn't on the Bulls roster. I didn't see that Rosie was proposing any further sweetening. What did I miss?
He's saying not to let a man crush on Taj, McBuckets, or Mirotic get in the way of making the deal. I think he's referring to past history, like when the Bulls wouldn't pull the trigger to get Pau the first time, or to trade up to draft Wade.
And supposedly, they offered those players in a trade. All of them. So, clearly, they are willing But Love is still in Minnesota. So what do you propose to add to that package to get it done?
Draft picks, at least. The thing is, I'm not sure we made that offer, the hearsay reports are mixed. I'm not sure the Cavs want to deal Wiggins and I think Minny would hold out as long as possible before accepting the Bulls' offer. The Bulls should at least make this offer.
Sun-Times Basketball @suntimes_hoops Here's some interesting news: according to a Bulls source, team is still aggressively in on Love - long shot or not.
Love for McDermott? Bulls rookie waits out trade rumors Bulls rookie Doug McDermott admitted on Tuesday that he was close to settling on a place in Chicago. And yes, he’s likely renting rather than buying. Smart decision. While the Kevin Love-Bulls trade rumors have seemingly quieted down to an almost complete silence, according to a source, the team was still in pursuit of the Minnesota All-Star forward, and that meant the package of Taj Gibson, McDermott as well as “other assets’’ was still on the table. The idea that newly-signed Pau Gasol was guaranteed a starting spot in the lineup was also dismissed, which means the questions about how would coach Tom Thibodeau use Gasol, Love and Joakim Noah at the same time is moot. The problem is that while the Bulls have kept that latest offer on the table for almost a week now, the Cleveland Cavaliers are doing everything they can to make sure that they stay in the lead for Love’s services, still trying to get a third team involved to meet the Timberwolves’ trade demand. Read more http://www.suntimes.com/sports/bask...okie-waits-out-trade-rumors.html#.U9hKR_mIDgs
One of the negatives to a self-imposed tax-line payroll budget is it will be a hard to have a great "win now" roster of stars and solid vets. The Bulls have a solid roster, but we are banking on guys on cheap rookie contracts that are more "win later" guys, along with our stars. (only 2, Rose and Noah) The road out of the East (and even winning the division) just got tougher. And the Cavs will get vets to sign there for cheap (Marion, etc) and will get even stronger next year with ring chasers willing to sign for cheaper than market. Should still be a fun season.
Right. (fine, change it to loathe to pay or pay one time in the tax era) The budget line is clearly the tax line. Its a pretty easy pattern to see. Can you see the pattern, Bullsville, or are you just missing it somehow? I'm just curious if you are just perhaps missing it, since you so strongly argue against something that is seemingly so clear to see.
I see goalposts moving, as always. I see that if Rose would have stayed healthy last season, it would have been the second consecutive year the Bulls paid the Luxury Tax. I see an organization that said it would pay the Luxury Tax for a contender, then did just that. Even though some folks insisted they would "NEVER pay the LT". I see an organization that is paying Boozer over $13 million to play for another team this season, something else that would allegedly "never happen".
The organization is paying $13M less in salaries. Profit = income - expenses Expenses did not change by boozer's amnesty. The Bulls are paying about $78M either way, with him or without him. In fact, the Lakers are contributing to the Chairman's profits. The joke is on you.
Right, but you do see the pattern, right? You see all the blank cells next to the row marked "Chicago," right?
The facts are not in question, conclusions drawn from the facts are what is subject to opinion. There us an old story, perhaps apocryphal, attributed to Abe Lincoln when he was a trial lawyer Supposedly, on a trial break in a case he was defending he was talking to the jury (you could never do that today). He told the following joke: Young boy runs into the farmhouse. "Pa! Pa! I saw big sis and the farmhand go into the barn. And I saw them go in the loft. And I saw them climb up and I saw sis take off his pants and saw him lift sis' skirts and they laid down. Pa! They are fixin' to pee on our hay!" Pa says "son you got the facts all right but I believe you have entirely reached the wrong conclusion." Abe got a verdict. At closing he said "Plaintiff's counsel got the facts all right but entirely reached the wrong conclusion. "
The facts are what they are. We all speculate as to wisdom and motivation. Therein is the dispute and it is simply tilting windmills in debate.
