FavreFan wrote:
The Wallace signing turned out poorly. But he was a big name free agent. That really cant be denied. Iirc, he was the biggest name that summer. You cant just dismiss him choosing to come here because it turned out poorly. And Boozer was a multiple all star who turned down a max offer from New Jersey to come here. These guys weren't mid-level guys, as much as you want to portray them that way. They were definitely big names. Boozer just happened to be overshadowed by the other names of that summer. But he's still been a better signing than Amare and probably more productive than Bosh has been.
Like denis said, the whole "Chicago cant get star players" thing is based on an incredibly small sample size. And I would think you would understand the risk of drawing grand conclusions from such a small sample size. We are talking about 2 guys from 14 years ago and 3 guys from 4 years ago. It's not like a franchise-altering free agent is on the market every summer and perpetually spurns Chicago. I think it's clear because of the Kobe/KG reports, our market, our roster, and our coaching/management that players would be willing to come here. Although I suppose this argument will come up again if Melo resigns with NY and Love signs with LA in the next two summers.
Yes, I understand the weaknesses and fallacies that result from drawing grand conclusions from small sample sizes - that's fine and valid. But as you said, franchise-changing stars just don't become available every year. Since the occurrences are rare, I think it's safe to say the sample size will always necessarily be small, and we'd be fine with going with the size we have in trying to figure out why the top players don't come here to play.
I don't always think it's something management is doing wrong. There are simply factors beyond anyone's control, such as weather, as CH point out. That's just tough luck - no fault of Krause or GarPax there. To be honest, I think you pointing out that KB and KG did want to come here has made me rethink this a little bit, but on the other hand I don't think the 2001 or 2010 can be dismissed because of the time passed and/or the collusion that may or may not have occurred. I actually think the Bulls should be commended for swinging for the fences both times, especially in 2010 since they had to make some tough roster decisions to create enough space to be a player. If I had to guess, I think it would be weather. Money is irrelevant since there is a strong universal cap structure in place that standardizes salaries all over the league, unless you live in a state free of income tax. Marketing opportunities obviously differ from city to city, but that seems to be less of a concern nowadays with the increased reach of nontraditional media technologies, plus the NBA's own marketing machinery. This means LBJ is going to be
known, whether he plays in NY or Milwaukee. TMac, Hill, Duncan, and the 2010 triumvirate all chose warmer climates over other options, though this is also admittedly simplistic to use as a partial causal factor. Short of relocating to a coastal city, I'm not sure what the Bulls (as a city to twenty-something hedonists with the entire country at their fingertips, and not necessarily as an organization) can do to become a more attractive option during those rare times when someone like KD or LBJ becomes a free agent.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
