Who still thinks CHI should have traded Deng & Noah & a pick for Carmelo Anthony?

[Glide2keva]

I give Dallas a ton of credit.

Good for you, but people act like Miami actually won last year. I gave them credit because they were the better team.

 

[houheffna]

May I remind YOU that Miami LOST to the better TEAM in Dallas and no one gave them credit either.

And how is Dallas doing this year? Like I said, you can find a team like Dallas winning a title every now and then, but not a dynasty. You still haven't disproved my point. The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that you need 2 or more stars to win titles.

And whether you like it or not, the Bulls feel the same way. That is why they went after Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Howard, Joe Johnson...just to name a few, after they got Rose. I agree with them.

 

[scottiepippen1994]

Too bad for them that they lost Chandler.
He had there biggest impact defensively in the finals.
Unfortunately the Heat would probably beat them now in a finals rematch.

 

[houheffna]

Good for you, but people act like Miami actually won last year. I gave them credit because they were the better team.

Who are you talking about. I act like Miami beat the Bulls last year...something I would think you would be concerned about...since, you know, you are a Bulls fan...on a Bulls forum...right?

I don't worry about titles without looking at Miami.

I took very little consolation in the Pistons losing to the Lakers in 1988. Very little. I rooted for the Lakers, but it didn't overshadow the fact that the Pistons beat the Bulls.

 

[Scoot26]

But name teams that have won with one star player and "chemistry" over the last 30 years...for every one you name, I can name 3, 4, 5 teams that won with 2 stars.

To you, what classifies a star?

 

[Glide2keva]

To you, what classifies a star?

25+PPG

 

[FirstTimer]

.

And I can name teams with 2 stars that didn't win squat. 1996 Sonics, 97-98 Jazz, 90's Orlando Magic, 2002 Kings, 2001 Blazers, a couple of 80's Celtics and Lakers teams.

This is a point because each of these teams lost to teams that had 2+ star players. The possible exception is the Magic team that got to the Finals.

So you bringing up teams with 2+ stars that didn't win anything when they lost titles to teams with 2+ stars themselves is flat out Special person.

And how is Dallas doing this year? Like I said, you can find a team like Dallas winning a title every now and then, but not a dynasty. You still haven't disproved my point. The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that you need 2 or more stars to win titles.

And whether you like it or not, the Bulls feel the same way. That is why they went after Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Howard, Joe Johnson...just to name a few, after they got Rose. I agree with them.

Excellent point.

 

[Glide2keva]

And how is Dallas doing this year? Like I said, you can find a team like Dallas winning a title every now and then, but not a dynasty. You still haven't disproved my point. The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that you need 2 or more stars to win titles.

Last year and this year are two different things. Dallas got rid of players from that team and brought in Odom who they just deactivated. So that isn't a fair comparison. Would you classify the Spurs as a dynasty since they didn't wine consecutive titles, but four in 8 years?

And whether you like it or not, the Bulls feel the same way. That is why they went after Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Howard, Joe Johnson, just to name a few, after they got Rose. I agree with them.

And I agree with them that they didn't need to gut the team just to get one player. Just because they had talks doesn't validate your point any more than it does mine. They were doing their jobs. If they DIDN'T try, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

But in the end, what did they do? They stood pat and didn't gut the team, so how does that help your point?

 

[Scoot26]

This is a point because each of these teams lost to teams that had 2+ star players. The possible exception is the Magic team that got to the Finals.

The Rockets actually had Drexler that year.

 

[FirstTimer]

Last year and this year are two different things. Dallas got rid of players from that team and brought in Odom who they just deactivated. So that isn't a fair comparison. Would you classify the Spurs as a dynasty since they didn't wine consecutive titles, but four in 8 years?

Another rebuttal. I don't think the Spurs winning 4 titles in 8 year counts as the "every now and then". Hou pointing out Dallas won A title and isn't likely to win more is kind of the point. Hounever said they needed to win consecutive ships to be a dynasty..if he did I missed that.

Or you just can't read/understand any damn thing.

 

[FirstTimer]

The Rockets actually had Drexler that year.

That's why I said possible exception. Drexler was obviously twilight of his career at that point. Was he still a star? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends how you want to qualify it.

 

[Glide2keva]

Who are you talking about? I act like Miami beat the Bulls last year...something I would think you would be concerned about...since, you know, you are a Bulls fan...on a Bulls forum...right?

I'm talking about the internet, media, fans. Of course they beat the Bulls last year. But that's where the discussion ends because no one wants to say that Miami didn't win last year and they act like they are going to turn it on in the playoffs like they did last year, but they LOST last year. So what does turning it on really mean?

I don't worry about titles without looking at Miami.

I think the Bulls can beat Miami.

I took very little consolation in the Pistons losing to the Lakers in 1988. Very little. I rooted for the Lakers, but it didn't overshadow the fact that the Pistons beat the Bulls.

I was pissed about that loss, even more so in 89 and 90. I didn't make it better that they lost to the eventual NBA champions, but it felt good to beat them in 91.

Miami isn't the center of the basketball world.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'm talking about the internet, media, fans. Of course they beat the Bulls last year. But that's where the discussion ends because no one wants to say that Miami didn't win last year and they act like they are going to turn it on in the playoffs like they did last year, but they LOST last year. So what does turning it on really mean?

I think the Bulls can beat Miami.

I was pissed about that loss, even more so in 89 and 90. I didn't make it better that they lost to the eventual NBA champions, but it felt good to beat them in 91.

Miami isn't the center of the basketball world.

:rolling:

Miami not winning last year was a massive story.

The **** are you talking about?

 

[houheffna]

To you, what classifies a star?

If I had to nail it down, I would think the elite are top 25 in the league. That changes according to the era. But I would use the same definition for star as the Supreme Court used for porn...you know it when you see it.

I know that is vague, but that is the best I can do right now.

 

[thedude33]

Rip Hamilton broke his dick off in the Knicks.

 

[houheffna]

Last year and this year are two different things. Dallas got rid of players from that team and brought in Odom who they just deactivated. So that isn't a fair comparison. Would you classify the Spurs as a dynasty since they didn't wine consecutive titles, but four in 8 years?

And I agree with them that they didn't need to gut the team just to get one player. Just because they had talks doesn't validate your point any more than it does mine. They were doing their jobs. If they DIDN'T try, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

But in the end, what did they do? They stood pat and didn't gut the team, so how does that help your point?

What??? They were trying to trade Deng after trading Hinrich to make more room for Lebron and Bosh, or Lebron and Wade.

The Bulls had a deal on the table with the Clippers to trade Deng but Sterling was the only person in the organization who thought he had a chance at Lebron so there was never a deal. You think they flew here and there and talked to Bosh and Wade just to save face? Lol...wow.

 

[Scoot26]

That's why I said possible exception. Drexler was obviously twilight of his career at that point. Was he still a star? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends how you want to qualify it.

Thats true, I'd still consider him a star at that point, but he was winding down.

 

[Glide2keva]

What??? They were trying to trade Deng after trading Hinrich to make more room for Lebron and Bosh, or Lebron and Wade.

The Bulls had a deal on the table with the Clippers to trade Deng but Sterling was the only person in the organization who thought he had a chance at Lebron so there was never a deal. You think they flew here and there and talked to Bosh and Wade just to save face? Lol...wow.

I didn't say they were trying to save face. I said they were doing their jobs.

 

[Scoot26]

If I had to nail it down, I would think the elite are top 25 in the league. That changes according to the era. But I would use the same definition for star as the Supreme Court used for porn...you know it when you see it.

I know that is vague, but that is the best I can do right now.

Hmmm okay. I suppose I can get that. Though from Top 20 on, there's probably a large degree of disagreement.

 

[FirstTimer]

I didn't say they were trying to save face. I said they were doing their jobs.

So they were just going through the motions?

You truly think they weren't making real efforts to sign them?