e-monk

maybe the 'bad trades' are actually the proof you're looking for? some teams arent willing to spend (others may have just signed a billion dollar TV contract)

thebizkit69u

The Lakers are going to get close to 200 million a year, they are willing to pay more than half of that in salary. The Bulls even if they got a billion dollar TV deal would NEVER do that.

yodurk

This has little to do with any skill exhibited by the Lakers, and everything to do with yet another situation of a superstar holding his team hostage until he gets what he wants. The fact of the matter is all but a few NBA superstars want to play in LA, NY, and Miami.

You don't need a brain to understand that Dwight Howard makes your team better. The problem is Howard was allowed to choose his team and he held the leverage b/c he would refuse signing an extension with anyone else. I blame the Magic front office for letting this get out of hand, this was even worse than the Lebron/Cavs situation.

How do you know the Bulls wouldn't pay up for this type of super team? Sure it would mean ticket prices go up, but I would venture to guess so will the Lakers' ticket prices. Not to mention even before this trade, the Lakers signed a huge TV deal and are an even bigger and more basketball hungry market than Chicago.

e-monk

no skill exhibited by the lakers? I think Mitch has plenty of reason to pop his collar after this off-season

thebizkit69u

First of all Dwight wanted to play in Brooklyn, not LA. He even went as far as saying that he dint want to play in LA and has not even signed an extension with them, yet the Lakers still pulled off the trade because they are serious about winning.

I dont buy that LA is a hungrier market than Chicago. The Bulls sold out more games than the Lakers, had over 100k more fans attend Bulls games over Laker games and has been doing so for the past 5+ Years. Only the Bulls could be a top 5 team in Attendance while being horrible team like they did from 2001 to 2005.

Heck the Bulls put up HISTORIC Comcast ratings with only 1 freaking marketable star in Derrick Rose. The Lakers have a top 5 player of all time, multiple stars and one nut case, of course they are going to get a great TV deal. Don't discount the fact that they are incredibly aggressive in the off season as one reason as to why they got such a great TV deal, everyone knows that the Lakers will try to improve every year and try to attract the biggest stars every year.

Like I said, the Lakers are a team that is serious about winning a title.

Luke

Y'all are far too pesemestic about your situation. Yes, your managment isn't top tier like L.A.'s or Miami's, but it's not awful either. If Rose was healthy last year the Bulls get to the ECF at the very least and have a very good chance at knocking out a Miami team that wasn't at 100% at that point in time.

__________________
Formerly VanillaPrice

Da Grinch

its called free agency for a reason , you get to choose where you want to go ...and L.A. was not his first choice at all it was brooklyn .

you cant make him sign an extension and chances are he still wont until he hits free agency because thats how the labor agreement works , he can get more money then.

the lakers just signed a huge tv deal , but why couldn't that happen in Chicago ?

no one was worried about marketing clout when jordan was a bull, the bulls have chicago to themselves as well and are by far the biggest market til you hit either coast .

but you need starpower , you need titles...and the bulls aren't on a path to either right now.

__________________
Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

yodurk

Well yeah, Lakers had a great off-season. But this is not a thread about the Lakers' off-season, it is a thread about Dwight Howard getting traded to the Lakers.

Try not to take my comment out of context, it was merely in response to bizkit's comment that "this is what a team serious about winning titles does" and then he went on to say how the Bulls are "letting the team rot" and not trying to win a championship.

The Lakers did their part here, and they have done alot right the past few years. Much credit to them. But I dispute this notion that they have an infallible power to persuade in trade negotiations. There is alot more to it than that, and they have alot working for them beyond just negotiation skill that other franchises don't benefit from. For one, they are probably the #1 most desirable destination in the entire NBA, making it incredibly easy for superstars to want to play there. In Dwight's case, that was 1 of only 2 locations that we know of where he was willing to go.

thebizkit69u

What have the Bulls done this offseason that will get them closer to winning an NBA title? Keeping their same aging mediocre assets? Building towards having another offseason where they will have cap money to spend on Free Agents like they did in 2010 and 2001, when they failed to sign a marquee free agent?

Dwight was willing to go anywhere, he was just not willing to sign an extension with anyone other than the Nets. He has still not signed an extension with the Lakers. As for LA being the #1 destination for Free Agents, it sure as hell doesn't seem that way if you were a Clippers fans.

Dwight Howard was a trade, Gasol a trade, Bynum was drafted. The last big time free agent they got was Karl Malone and Gary Payton back in 2004 when they were both well past their primes.

The Lakers don't just sit there and watch stars sign like the Heat did, the actually made moves and got their targets. You can try to put a spin on it and make it seem like no other team can compete with the star drawing power of the Lakers but in reality the Lakers front office is just that GOOD.

thebizkit69u

I completely agree. Granted it wont be worth 2 billion dollars, the market size in LA is obviously bigger, but there should be no reason why the hell the Bulls can't get a big TV deal. They are KILLING it ratings wise on WGN and Comcast, they are a NATIONAL draw every year and they put up big playoff numbers. All this with only 1 damn STAR! It boggles my mind as to why Reinsdorf won't invest more in this team.

yodurk

You yourself have said this is a lost season with Rose shelved and unlikely to return to MVP form until next year. I happen to agree with that for the most part (though I believe there are some developmental goals we can get out it). So tell me what could possibly be done to put them even remotely on a championship path right now. It sucks, but it is what it is.

I had a feeling someone would mention the Clippers. Do you really want to go there? LA is and always has been a Laker town. I doubt there is a superstar in this league would wants to play for LA's afterthought of a team. The Lakers have the rich history and expansive fan base, the Clippers have none of that. It is not only all about Hollywood and the warm weather...it's that, plus being the #1 sports team in that city.

Yes, they are good. It is also pretty clear their job is made easier by the other factors mentioned here. There are plenty of things pre-Kupchak era to suggest the Lakers have a much easier time staying good/elite compared to the majority of this league.

yodurk

I am not sure what the actual data looks like in terms of Bulls TV ratings. But in the 6 years I lived in Chicago, I will say I never got the feeling the city has the broad fan base people think. Chicago is a football town first, baseball town second (Cubs primarily), and basketball town third. Everybody talked about the Bears game every Monday morning in the office. If I brought up the Bulls, my odds of getting a response was about 1 in 5. Granted this was before Rose was drafted but the Bears and Cubs are bad more times than not, and they still generate tons of interest.

My understanding of LA is that the Lakers are to them, what the Bears are to Chicago. I'd be very surprised if the Chicago local TV ratings of Bulls games approached the same stratosphere of the Lakers. Then again I've never formally look at the numbers nor even know where to look.

thebizkit69u

Addition by subtraction. Trade Deng for assets, amnesty Boozer or trade Noah for more suitable pieces to fit around Rose. This team is going NO WHERE. They aren't going to get a good draft pick anytime soon, they suck at free agency and this has been a historically conservative trading front office. Cap space in 2014 means nothing if they can't sign legit stars and waiting for an unknown Euro is huge risk, especially when he doesn't even project to be a great player in the first place and even if he did we are talking about 2-3 years of development time ALONE.


And the Bulls don't have a rich history and expansive fan base? WTF?

Nobody goes to the Lakers for the History, just like nobody went to the Heat for the history. Its all about Location, market exposure and "Living the life". Heck you want to talk about history and prestige, if that was all it takes to be a great destination then the Sixers and Celtics should be #1 or #2 on everyone's free agent wish list.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that reason is called Jerry West.

thebizkit69u

Rose's impact on this team has created a TON of interest locally and nationally, Rose is arguably the most popular athlete in Chicago.

1) 8.73 – Bulls vs. IND (1/25/12)
2) 7.66 – Bulls vs. ATL (1/3/12)
3) 7.54 – Bulls at DET

Those are the local ratings for Bulls games... Against boring competition they absolutely killed it in the ratings. 8.73 household record rating for the Bulls match-up vs. Indiana on January 25 was the #1 highest-rated regular season game – for any team – in Comcast SportsNet history.

The Bulls are a massive draw.

Nobody is saying that they are more popular than the Bears, nor is anyone saying that Chicago is a basketball town. But you have to understand that interest in the Bulls has sky rocketed since they drafted Rose.

Star power draws, put some more stars on the Bulls and you better believe we will be getting some monster TV offers.

That was in 2011, game 1 vs the Heat.

The Bulls are a massive draw.

yodurk

You took this way out of context. First off we weren't discussing the Bulls on that point, that comment was in response to "Why not the Clippers if LA is so great". I never claimed the Bulls didn't have a rich history, just that the Bulls don't own Chicago the way the Lakers own LA.

And on top of that, I was not citing rich franchise history as a selling point for the players. Rather, it is the Laker culture owning the city's sports fanbase.

Put another way, many of the league's superstars are attention junkies and dig the Hollywood scene, rubbing shoulders with celebrities, etc. and they get 10x more of that with Lakers compared to the Clippers (or compared to any team not in New York). This really isn't any different than what you just said about market exposure and living the life. Simply put, they're going to get more attention in LA or NY than with Chicago. The majority of Chicagoans watch(ed) the Bulls to see MJ and Rose, not because they are rabid basketball fans the way they are in LA or NY.