NBA Off Topic

[Boltman]

Re: NBA Off Topic

They're talking about him right now with C-Webb & Anthony on NBA.

C-Webb said "Who says he want's to come back? What if he has a good season and someone makes him a better offer?"

That's assuming he plays late in the year and shows any consistency.

Dallas & Philly playing a nice game right now, 72-72.

[ex carrabba fan]

I don't think that, it was suggested and Vni asked the meaning and I was obliging.

I did say "Why he'd do this however, I have no clue" as in I really don't think he is. I agree with you in fact ex, I don't think he is at all.

Yeah i was directing that at the first two guys who suggested bynum was milking it. Like you, i ask why would he milk it or how would that benefit him in any way

Sent from my LG-MS910 using Tapatalk 2

[King_B_Mack]

Re: NBA Off Topic

It isn't?

In the last 10 years, name a trade or contract the Bulls have moved that they absolutely needed to to change the makeup of the team? I'll wait...

They are really good at overpaying fringe all-stars though. I'll give them that.

If Joe Johnson can be moved, then Boozer can most definitely be moved.

Ben Wallace.

Anyway I'm not going to go down that route with you cause I've been down it enough and don't feel like being bothered. Boozer is about to be amnestied, if you think the Bulls are sitting around not looking to dump Boozer off on someone then you're fooling yourself and just bitter about moves they haven't made over the years for whatever reason. They've tried to move Boozer, but nobody wants him. If they move Boozer's contract, it's only going to be for some trash that's even worse than him or equally as bad which solves nothing.

[Kashanova]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Milking means? Like he's pretending?



Dude, bowling is a dangerous sport for a big men.

He wasn't playing before the bowling incident anyways. it's just funny this guy played in the playoffs and over the summer now he can't play smh

[JODYE]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Ben Wallace.

Anyway I'm not going to go down that route with you cause I've been down it enough and don't feel like being bothered. Boozer is about to be amnestied, if you think the Bulls are sitting around not looking to dump Boozer off on someone then you're fooling yourself and just bitter about moves they haven't made over the years for whatever reason. They've tried to move Boozer, but nobody wants him. If they move Boozer's contract, it's only going to be for some trash that's even worse than him or equally as bad which solves nothing.

Sorry your highness for bothering you.

We made that trade because we were 20 games under .500, not because he was hindering us from making other moves to get better. He was disposable because we already sucked. Now our front office wants to sit on their hands because they finally have had some sustained success after a decade of being nearly irrelevant and have handicapped us with bloated contracts for fringe stars, which they are scared to move.

We don't need it to solve anything. This year is a wash and we need cap space. Guarantee a bottom feeder would give up a pick and a player for him.

If you think otherwise, then you're the only one fooling yourself.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Sorry your highness for bothering you.

We made that trade because we were 20 games under .500, not because he was hindering us from making other moves to get better. He was disposable because we already sucked. Now our front office wants to sit on their hands because they finally have had some sustained success after a decade of being nearly irrelevant and have handicapped us with bloated contracts for fringe stars, which they are scared to move.

We don't need it to solve anything. This year is a wash and we need cap space. Guarantee a bottom feeder would give up a pick and a player for him.

If you think otherwise, then you're the only one fooling yourself.

It's fine peasant.

Of course you have an excuse. Ben Wallace, like Carlos Boozer did not live up to the huge contract he was giving and was basically here stealing money. Him being here with that deal was hurting the team, they traded him, end of story. Don't sit here and try to qualify the answer with some garbage like they traded him because they were 20 games under .500 (they were only 10 games under btw, but sweet try) as if the Bulls have never been under .500 before and guys weren't just GETTING traded as a result.

As for this year being a wash, that's one thing you're right about. As for some bottom feeder giving us a pick and a player for THAT contract and the Bulls sticking they're head in the sand on it, I believe you are wrong. If the Bulls are going to use the amnesty on Boozer anyway, why would they not take a deal some bottom feeder was offering to get a pick and a short contract on? Better question would be why would some bottom feeder saddle themselves with that contract and kill they're own flexiblity? The team knows we need cap space which is why all the deals they've made over the offseason have been one year deals to position themselves to have cap space in the future (not that it matters since Chicago is apparently Cleveland part II).

[The 24th Letter]

Bulls fans are like family members....they may fight amongst themselves, but when it's time to rally they're all there together lol

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Game threads are below their average this year compared to the past 2 years.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Game threads are below their average this year compared to the past 2 years.

I wonder why that could be......hmmmm.....

Spoiler

Oh yeah....

Is it All-Star break or April yet?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Man you'll live.

If I can make it thru 5 years of god awful and god ugly Basketball, then ya'll can make it thru 5 months of average Basketball LOL.

[Blue]

Game threads are below their average this year compared to the past 2 years.

No rose, kyrie, Dirk, wall, Nash, Bynum, Rubio...
The list goes on... So I can see why.

Although the timberwolves were really fun to watch last night with Love back.

[JODYE]

Re: NBA Off Topic

It's fine peasant.

Of course you have an excuse. Ben Wallace, like Carlos Boozer did not live up to the huge contract he was giving and was basically here stealing money. Him being here with that deal was hurting the team, they traded him, end of story. Don't sit here and try to qualify the answer with some garbage like they traded him because they were 20 games under .500 (they were only 10 games under btw, but sweet try) as if the Bulls have never been under .500 before and guys weren't just GETTING traded as a result.

As for this year being a wash, that's one thing you're right about. As for some bottom feeder giving us a pick and a player for THAT contract and the Bulls sticking they're head in the sand on it, I believe you are wrong. If the Bulls are going to use the amnesty on Boozer anyway, why would they not take a deal some bottom feeder was offering to get a pick and a short contract on? Better question would be why would some bottom feeder saddle themselves with that contract and kill they're own flexiblity? The team knows we need cap space which is why all the deals they've made over the offseason have been one year deals to position themselves to have cap space in the future (not that it matters since Chicago is apparently Cleveland part II).

What is this babble in bolded?

His deal was hurting the team? No, I think that was our piss poor bench and lack of offense outside of Ben Gordon shooting 30 times.

They traded him because the Cavs needed a center and because we sucked and were taking a shot on getting a deeper bench with more scoring. We ended up taking Larry Hughes' ****bag contract in the process. Not sure where you got the idea that it was a cap relief deal.

I misspoke, 10 games under but 18 games back in the Central, which still equals irrelevant and ****ty.

If Rashard Lewis, whose contract was even more ridiculous than Boozer's, can be traded (Not once BUT TWICE) when he wasn't even averaging 8 points a game, pretty sure a guy who is averaging a double double can be.

You know damn well they are trying to remain in some sort of contention in hopes that Rose is going to return this season, which is idiotic.

[Kashanova]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Game threads are below their average this year compared to the past 2 years.

When the Lakers/Bulls are winning those threads are like 2000 replies long(hyperbole)

[JODYE]

Re: NBA Off Topic

Yeah, not much to talk about when you are blowing 27 point leads at home -__-

Glad I chose to not go to the game.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: NBA Off Topic

What is this babble in bolded?

His deal was hurting the team? No, I think that was our piss poor bench and lack of offense outside of Ben Gordon shooting 30 times.

They traded him because the Cavs needed a center and because we sucked and were taking a shot on getting a deeper bench with more scoring. We ended up taking Larry Hughes' ****bag contract in the process. Not sure where you got the idea that it was a cap relief deal.

I misspoke, 10 games under but 18 games back in the Central, which still equals irrelevant and ****ty.

If Rashard Lewis, whose contract was even more ridiculous than Boozer's, can be traded (Not once BUT TWICE) when he wasn't even averaging 8 points a game, pretty sure a guy who is averaging a double double can be.

You know damn well they are trying to remain in some sort of contention in hopes that Rose is going to return this season, which is idiotic.

Who gives a **** if they sucked or not? They were taking a shot at getting a deeper bench. Your words, not mine. How the hell is that different from moving a contract to change the makeup of the team? That's what you asked and of course, in true BSer fashion when you got an answer you didn't want to hear you wanna try to add disclaimers to the original point to invalidate it. You were trying to imply that because it was the Bulls, they wouldn't ever trade a player to help the team and that's why Boozer was still here. You were wrong, own it and move on.

As for Rashard Lewis is it really fair to count the second time he was traded considering he was in the last year of his deal? An expiring contract, especially a big money expiring contract will never, ever ever ever be considered an unmovable deal. Even the first one can we even really try to count that one since it was a straight up swap of Gilbert Arenas? It was worse anyway cause he had three years left on his deal, while Gilbert had four left. Is it really an unmovable deal when the trade boils down to swapping unmovable deals.