Sure, they have added some nice talent. But they stunk last season, albeit partly from jettisoning some players in preparation for free agency. But still, this team has not had success yet, and they also have a new coach. The Bucks already established themselves last year, and can build on that. Granted, they have a good one in Derick Rose and an established star in Carlos Boozer,  but he has averaged 64 games a season in his career and a good bet to have some injury in 2010-2011.

I accept that the Bulls could become a very good team. I just don't think it is as automatic as some in the media have portrayed.

Please chime in. Thanks.

Hello gang. I have been curiously intrigued by all the chatter of where Lebron James, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, et all will end up when free agency hits in a couple days.  More importantly, I have been thinking (and part of me, hoping) of the possibiity that several combinations of free agent pairings might yield very few to NO championships. Rick Bucher, on an ESPN panel the other night, stressed that gathering a collection of all-stars won't necessarily mean that that collection will win a chmapionship, because what you are basically doing is "starting over" in a brand new realm.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to start this discussion. What combination of free agents would work the best? Are the free agents' motives all the same, meaning, how many of them are looking for endorsements vs. a winning environment? How the heck do these "meetings" take place, and do all of them, in the end, have to talk to each other?

By the way, I call this "collusion" not in a negative sense (as in owners colluding). Just a term I thought would fit as an ample metaphor.

Peace,

Tom