For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I'm not going to go Bernstein on people by calling them dumb for rooting for the 2016-17 dumbass, slapstick, going-nowhere Chicago Bulls. In basketball I am all about collecting assets, and wherever they ended up in the lottery would have been a better than wherever they're going to end up now after making the playoffs - the lottery pick is an asset you can use to sweeten a deal, or it can even be the centerpiece of a deal. The Rondo and Wade signings representing nothing but management wanting short-term, capped gain (capped since they're not winning a ring), so that's why I opposed them from the start. And while they may be generating excitement now after winning two on the road against Boston, they're still not going anywhere. So the question is would I prefer the short-term fun and excitement caused by a playoff run that's not going to go far, or would I prefer the drudgery of a race to the lottery. I'd pick the lottery every time given those two options.

I think there is. Especially if you're enjoying their 2-0 series lead over the top seed.

DT, Danny just has trouble rooting for anything that doesn't ultimately result in a championship and isn't the highest level of sports achievement. Thus his disdain for lower level non-pro sports. But most fans don't think this way. They only see the game in front of them and watch it for entertainment purposes. It's not some epic movement or championship determining game. The fact of the matter is they are watching to enjoy the game and have some rooting interest.

I guess it's also useful to make a distinction between fans who invest time in "following" teams, like I assume most do here, and casual fans. I can see the casual fan only seeing "the game in front of them and watch[ing] it for entertainment purposes." But for the more committed fan, you retain rooting interest even if you want the team to lose in the short-term in order to set yourself up for a bigger payday down the road.

I think this stuff becomes clearer the older you get. I don't have as many seasons to waste as you do. jimmypasta went 108 years without one. Thank God Theo Epstein came along to win one for him before he dies.

They have the 16th pick in the draft. That is not going to change no matter how far they advance this postseason. If they lost that last game to the Nets and missed the playoffs, there is a 99% chance they would have the 14th pick. That's not really a significant upgrade asset wise.

Your fandom befuddles me more than anyone else's here. The vast majority of the time you don't even seem to like the Bulls or want them to be successful, but you claim to be a Bulls fan. I honestly believe you would be annoyed if they somehow pulled off a huge miracle and won the title this year.

But that doesn't even come to fruition in most cases. If the Bulls could some how manage to win the East and then lose to Golden State or San Antonio 4-0 that's likely to be a better season than they're going to have anytime in the near future with whatever great draft pick you want to fantasize they might get.

I guess it's also useful to make a distinction between fans who invest time in "following" teams, like I assume most do here, and casual fans. I can see the casual fan only seeing "the game in front of them and watch[ing] it for entertainment purposes." But for the more committed fan, you retain rooting interest even if you want the team to lose in the short-term in order to set yourself up for a bigger payday down the road.

You only wanted the Bulls to make the playoffs because you'd make $200 off of DB. I'd like to assess the quality of your "fandom" when you don't stand to monetarily gain from their short-term success. Have you staked out a spot in Grant Park yet for the Bulls impending championship parade? I heard Paul Zipser and Cameron Payne are planning an epic dance off.

Right. It's funny that people get so into sports analysis they miss the most basic aspects of sports fandom.

The team gains nothing ... I don't believe that either of you are too dim to have known what my assertion referred to. I could be wrong about that though ... it's happened a handful of times previously on other topics.

The difference between being a respected team that competes in the playoffs and has a star in Jimmy Butler and being a tanking mess of an organization is significant. Free agents don't want to come help rebuild a team. They want to team up with other stars and win titles.

so now this organization with GarPax and Hoiberg at the helm is a respected team ? I know it's 4/20 today and you're likely experiencing short term memory loss, but my god

If the Bulls make the Eastern Conference Finals you don't think that changes the way potential free agents view them vs how they viewed them two weeks ago? I definitely do. I think there is a lot to be gained for the Bulls as an organization in the next few weeks. It's up to them to go get it. The talent is there.

The team gains nothing ... I don't believe that either of you are too dim to have known what my assertion referred to. I could be wrong about that though ... it's happened a handful of times previously on other topics.

I don't mean to sound like an old guy shaking his fist, but fans used to root for Mickey and Willie and now they root for Theo and Billy. Enjoy the game however you want. The problem is it's a lot harder to lie to yourself that you're Willie Mays than it is to lie to yourself that you're Theo Epstein. The real truth is you're not close to being either one.

But there's only so much that this new crop of sports writers can truly identify with in the players they admire. Socially cosseted with other journalists, liberal sports writers increasingly identify with the only set of actors in the sports world that come from a cultural milieu relatable to their own: the new class of rationalizing, brainy executives. In another generation, sports writers dreamed futilely of being Willie Mays or Gordie Howe. Now they want to be Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey. And their copy and concerns increasingly seem to be written for each other and for these analytics-loving general managers.

The pattern of over-identifying with general managers is endemic to liberal sports journalism, and the not-so-secret truth is that liberal sportswriters increasingly hold the culture that produces athletes and their fans in contempt, or even find it dangerous and threatening. Fans are treated as a distracting nuisance, in thrall to their tribal affinities and over-invested in homegrown players or even in winning itself. How quaint.

The culture of athletes is treated as alien and toxic, a kind of pit in which womanizing bros, aggressive rageaholics, and icky religious freaks are allowed to flourish and enjoy a high income and status that would be justly denied to people who act and think in this way in any other profession. When macho athletes like Yasiel Puig are profiled, it is often in a superficial way in which their background is mined for all political resonance and dramatic tension, but the actual personality is carefully obscured. Athletes are famously hard to get to know, but sportswriters often just seem incapable of getting their head into a macho, competitive, aggressive culture. And sometimes, sports writers seem to be appealing to the general manager or team HR departments to enforce liberal norms on their highly paid assets.

The smaller portion of athletes who happen to share cultural affinities or political commitments with liberal sports writers are given glowing, intimate, get-to-know-you portraits. Stories like "How Philadelphia Eagles linebacker Connor Barwin — a bike-riding, socially conscious, Animal Collective-loving hipster — is redefining what it means to be a football player." I wonder if there was a follow-up asking all other football players whether they were redefined by Barwin's presence. It's notable that journalists who do seem to get along with average athletes, like Bill Simmons or even Stephen A. Smith, are treated with a little bit of suspicion by the rest of the sports writer tribe.

The team gains a chance for a very successful season. That is, unless you measure success by championships only and think every other team is an equal loser. That seems a popular viewpoint these days.

I'm not a Bulls fan, but if I were, taking out the number one seed in the East is a good season already and then we can go from there.

To me it's sort of like there's a modern obsession with always being at the next place instead of living in the moment.

That's a pretty big g-damned "if", Chumley. It sure as hell isn't something you expect prior to the playoffs either, so arguing after the fact what someone should typically think about a situation is basically cheating, for lack of a better word.

Right. It's a point deBoer's been banging on about for years now, especially when it comes to the Deadspin people. I think the tendency for media types to cast all sports debate as a matter of the enlightened vs drooling idiots is plainly dumb and inaccurate as it is, but this is compounded by the fact that the people who see themselves in the former group often fail to realize it's the people they'd put in the latter group that allow sports leagues to effectively function.

But that doesn't even come to fruition in most cases. If the Bulls could some how manage to win the East and then lose to Golden State or San Antonio 4-0 that's likely to be a better season than they're going to have anytime in the near future with whatever great draft pick you want to fantasize they might get.

I think this stuff becomes clearer the older you get. I don't have as many seasons to waste as you do. jimmypasta went 108 years without one. Thank God Theo Epstein came along to win one for him before he dies.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Was the core of the 2016 Cubs team a fantasy? What about a core of Durant Westbrook, and Harden? Tim Duncan to San Antonio? I also trust you realize​ the irony of not wanting to waste seasons while praising Theo Epstein for winning JP a championship.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Did OKC tank to get Durant, Westbook and Harden? San Antonio lucked into Duncan. Tanking in the NBA has not worked.

What does getting to or through the second round this year actually net them exactly?

Was the core of the 2016 Cubs team a fantasy? What about a core of Durant Westbrook, and Harden? Tim Duncan to San Antonio? I also trust you realize​ the irony of not wanting to waste seasons while praising Theo Epstein for winning JP a championship.

The Spurs have used the draft but they never tanked, outside maybe the one season where Robinson got hurt for the year and they got Duncan. Nobody on the current roster is the result of tanking.