I am asking this question because once again, I am reading an internet discussion by "intelligent" fans who continue to bitch that the Bulls "let assets walk for nothing".
Every team loses players every year, thank Curt Flood and Connie Hawkins for free agency. You know what they do? They replace those players with other players who may or may not be better. Of course you always hope your team gets better players, but it doesn't always happen.
The funniest part of this discussion is the bitching and crying that the Bulls could have had Courtney Lee for Asik. But apparently these morons are ignoring the fact that Courtney Lee was also a free agent at the same time Asik was, but apparently it's better to trade for another free agent than to keep your player and try to win a championship and try to resign the player that summer.
Mike Dunleavy? The Bulls got him for nothing, and Milwaukee lost him for nothing.
Nate Robinson? The Bulls got him for nothing, and Golden State lost him for nothing.
Kirk Hinrich? The Bulls got him for nothing, and Atlanta lost him for nothing.
Kyle Korver? The Bulls got him for nothing, and Utah lost him for nothing.
One Einstein even made a list:
Virtually nothing for Chandler.
Nothing for Gordon.
Nothing for Hinrich.
Nothing for Asik.
Nothing for Korver.
Nothing for Nate Robinson.
The really funny thing here? The Bulls got "nothing" for Hinrich, even though they used his salary slot to sign Korver and Watson within a couple of weeks of getting "nothing" for Hinrich.
Nothing for Gordon- that's what he's done since he left the Bulls, NOTHING.
Nothing for Asik- now he's already demanding a trade from his new team.
Nothing for Korver- what has he done since leaving the Bulls? He's still hitting shots for a mediocre team in the ATL, but how many teams were interested in him this summer when he could have been had for the MLE? Zero, other than ATL.
Nothing for Robinson- they used his roster and salary slot to add Dunleavy, who is much more valuable to the Bulls than Robinson would be.
So how exactly are you getting "nothing" for a guy when you use his salary and roster spot to sign another player? Yes, I'm glad the folks who read this blog are intelligent enough to understand.
Why are some people too stupid to understand that if you let a player leave "for nothing", the team doesn't just have an empty roster spot, they replace that guy with another player, that they often get "for nothing".
These clueless "hardcore fans" act as if the Bulls are turning down trades where other teams are dying for their players who are about to become free agents.
But don't worry, as long as all of you intelligent fans keep reading this blog, I'll keep giving you the simple, logical, reasonable explanations to stupid complaints from the woefully uninformed.