# Staying put may end up hurting us



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

If you look at all the activity going on right now in the NBA in regards to trading and big men being moved from team to team, you'd think Pax could at least look to try and get one that has at least some skills and that maybe could help us throughout the rest of the season. Now I know getting a good big man is as probable as New York making the playoffs this year, but please. Radmanovich was traded, so was Wilcox, Davis could have been had again (they traded him for Rose, for **** sakes) and a ton of other servicable bigs that could end up becoming worth something (Darko) are being shopped around with no interest from Chicago. Does Pax just hate having to try and mix up the team? I mean, this team can't get it done, and I hate that he wants to wait another year to get better. I'd rather takes my chances now and make us somewhat better NOW! We need to try and push to get into the playoffs, and this Bulls squad is horribly too inconsistent enough to be able to get there this season.

Another thing I find amusing: You guys find the draft as our savior and our only chance to get better. But answer me this, how many BIG MEN have come out in the past couple years and have had an IMMEDIATE impact on their team??? Plus, there are no big prospects that look like they could become the next Shaq, well not until '07 at least. I just hate the way Pax is shaping up this team. We are young enough as it is, and getting younger will just take MORE AND MORE time to become a better team. Last year could have been the start of something good, because we had finally gotten onto the right track. Everyone was playing great and then BAAM, we're back to square one. (Well, not really square one, but Pax has us rebuilding again.) When will he stop trying to rebuild and actually start getting some experienced players that can help this team win.

It's been 7 years and the rebuilding has still been going on. How many more years do Chicago fans have to wait until we get a respectable ball club to watch on TV? That's my most important question of all right now. I only hope the answer isn't too long, for the sake of every Bulls fan out there.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

What truly hurts is that the more bigs taken off the market, the more money the rest will command.
Rumours have Nene being shipped out sometime soon, so it'll basically leave Al Harrington, Joel Pryzbilla and Nazr Mohammed left. That is sad.

We might have to start looking at guys like Ely, Voshkul, Kandi, Battie, Cato, god help us.

I really wish we did the K-Mart trade, or atleast do the rumoured one for Gooden. Otherwise it looks like if we stay put, we'll have to give Al max money just to even consider us... :eek8:


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

step said:


> What truly hurts is that the more bigs taken off the market, the more money the rest will command.
> Rumours have Nene being shipped out sometime soon, so it'll basically leave Al Harrington, Joel Pryzbilla and Nazr Mohammed left. That is sad.
> 
> We might have to start looking at guys like Ely, Voshkul, Kandi, Battie, Cato, god help us.
> ...


That's another reason why Pax should be fired. Not to say he hasn't done a good job so far until the start of this season, but I think Pax has run out of good moves. He is not budging in order to get a big, and if he doesn't, there won't be anyone good enough left next year. I bet if we had a more pro-active GM we'd have AD back and would never have traded Curry. I bet both of them would still be here and we'd be around the 5th spot if not for Pax's stupid idea of making Curry get a DNA test in the summer. Plus he killed Chandler and Duhon's trading value in the summer by not trying to shop them around. Staying silent will not make this team better, and I believe if Pax and Skiles aren't replaced by next year, the Bulls may have to suffer through MORE rebuilding stages in order to get better. I hope to god for the sake of Pax's job and respectibility that he starts thinking for once and does something about our bad frontcourt and our even worse chances of improving it from now until next season.

The Bulls' future is in Pax's hands, and I don't feel so good about our future right now as much as I did at the beginning of last summer (Pre-Curry trade and so forth). He's really let me down BIG time. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

step said:


> What truly hurts is that the more bigs taken off the market, the more money the rest will command.
> Rumours have Nene being shipped out sometime soon, so it'll basically leave Al Harrington, Joel Pryzbilla and Nazr Mohammed left. That is sad.
> 
> We might have to start looking at guys like Ely, Voshkul, Kandi, Battie, Cato, god help us.
> ...


Just because Nene and Gooden or even Baby Al are traded, all that means is their new team can match the offer. They will be in the same boat as their current team since we have the cap room to sign these type of players.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

lougehrig said:


> Just because Nene and Gooden or even Baby Al are traded, all that means is their new team can match the offer. They will be in the same boat as their current team since we have the cap room to sign these type of players.


Nene will probably get traded, but what gives us the advantage of getting him? Most teams have just as many (if not more) chances of getting Nene and signing him to a contract before Pax even has a chance to blink.

Gooden will probably re-sign with the Cavs if they have a good run in the playoffs. And if he gets traded somewhere else, he may end up wanting to stay with that team and we don't get a chance to sign him at all. Another wasted opportunity.

Our only chance of signing either of the three guys you mentioned would be to sign Harrington for whatever he's demanding. Nazr and Pryz. are also other options, although even they don't look as promising as Nene or Gooden could be.

Overall, they all stink. But we have no other choice but to try and nab one (or even two) of them, and then try to build around them or have them be a part of the building process. Either way, this team ain't getting to the Finals with any of the FA they are hopeful to get this offseason. That I can guaranSHEED you!

But you never know. Things may end up turning out for the better. Let's all hope that they do.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

EDit: Double post, please delete. Thanks.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I love people that believe Pax is just goofing around and not trying to improve the team one way or another.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> I love people that believe Pax is just goofing around and not trying to improve the team one way or another.


Tell me one thing Pax has done to improve this team in the past 8-9 months. All he did was trade away our frontcourt and then has done NOTHING to help us out. Last year was great and all, but it didn't last too long, now did it? A good GM finds players that can help the team, not players that hurt it.

Sweets/Songaila/Allen over Curry/Davis/Griffin makes me wonder if Pax really knows what he's doing. 

I just don't see how smart you can be to do that type of move.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

PowerWoofer said:


> Tell me one thing Pax has done to improve this team in the past 8-9 months. All he did was trade away our frontcourt and then has done NOTHING to help us out. Last year was great and all, but it didn't last too long, now did it? A good GM finds players that can help the team, not players that hurt it.
> 
> Sweets/Songaila/Allen over Curry/Davis/Griffin makes me wonder if Pax really knows what he's doing.
> 
> I just don't see how smart you can be to do that type of move.


Yeah, when Griffin was a Bull, he was a scrub. Now that he doesnt belong here, all of the sudden he is THE VETERAN. 

Dont forget the Knicks draft pick, and the picks swap next draft also. 

Paxson likes this core and wants to stick with it. Then he traded/signed/released other pieces that are secondary. But the fact that he didnt trade for Wilcox or Radmanovic doesnt prove that he isnt trying to improve the team. I guess we should give I.T a try when he is fired from the Knicks organization. That man is always trying to improve his team. Right? Thats what we should expect from Paxson?


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Griffin at least provided some veteran presence in the locker room. Also, I agree that I.T. is crazy, but Pax is just as crazy not to at last try and get someone who can help this team. Being crazy won't make your team better (the Knicks' case), but being silent on trade talks will hurt your team just as much (Pax's case).


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Just because Nene and Gooden or even Baby Al are traded, all that means is their new team can match the offer. They will be in the same boat as their current team since we have the cap room to sign these type of players.



I disagree. Our chances are better to get Nene if he stays put and the Kiki keeps his roster as is. They got to re-up Carmelo at max money and even though that's a year away, they do not want to be paying luxury tax. So if they have an order not to pay it, there's not a lot they can do if we hand over a big offer sheet to him. I mean they could move some contracts around before Melo's extension kicks in, but then they're going to have to move good players. Do they want to pay someone 9, 10 million to be a backup anyway? Even with their frontcourt injuries, that's a big investment. 

With the Cavs, I think our advantage there is they apparently like Varejao more than Gooden. Salary may be a concern, but everything I read about their new owner seems to point to him not being cheap at all. But you still have to be smart with it. Do you pay Gooden 9,10 million if you know Varejao is your guy at PF? 

I think they each of those situations have question marks as to if they would match a big offer sheet to their respective players. 

Now if they get traded, I don't think we got as good of shot. A team is going to have to give up something to get them. That and the fact these guys are due big contracts in a few months to me would say they are very interested in keeping them longterm. Can we say the Nuggets and Cavs are *very interested* in keeping Nene and Gooden? 

So IMO if they get traded, it makes it harder for us to acquire them. It has to make a team thinking about signing either of them in the offseason increase their offer somewhat vs. what they may be thinking at this time. 

Al's in a different situation since he's an UFA. I think we have a good chance at him now, but we shouldn't think he's our for the taking. If he gets traded within the next week, our disadvantage would be how well that team is and ends up playing out the season with him. If things goes well on a new team, I would think our chances are lower than what they are now seeing as how he's on one of the worst teams in the league. Unless of course, we blow the other team's offer away, which seems unlikely. 

Each of these guys have situations that work to our advantage right now going into free agency. A change of scenery changes things pretty significantly I think.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

PowerWoofer said:


> Griffin at least provided some veteran presence in the locker room. Also, I agree that I.T. is crazy, but Pax is just as crazy not to at last try and get someone who can help this team. Being crazy won't make your team better (the Knicks' case), but being silent on trade talks will hurt your team just as much (Pax's case).



Try.Try.Try. 

How do you know the guy is not trying? Or maybe he is trying to lose his job by not improving the team? Maybe...

And Malik Allen is a rookie.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> And Malik Allen is a rookie.


If by rookie you mean 6th year, then yes, you are correct


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Try.Try.Try.
> 
> How do you know the guy is not trying? Or maybe he is trying to lose his job by not improving the team? Maybe...


The defenses get more defensive as we wallow deeper into mediocrity. Now Pax fandom can't just admit that maybe they aren't right about every friggin thing. Now it becomes an argument of "well you don't know the man's schedule. Yeah buddy, I'm sure he's trying to make us worse." 

Pay attention. *With Paxson and his most ardent fans in the media and on this board it always comes back to the same thing -- THEY CONFUSE EFFORT WITH RESULTS.* Yes Paxson is likely not affirmatively trying to destroy the Bulls. Wippee. I think you can say that about most NBA GMs if not all of them. Their intentions are certainly not to make their teams worse. Paxson is "trying." Good for him. So is everyone else who does their job. I tend to not look at what 90% of people are doing. Look at what the most successful 10% are doing. What is Dumars doing? Cause I'm sure he's doing everything Paxson is and then some. What I'd want to know is what is the "then some." Same with Walsh, etc.

Honestly, Paxson has chosen to build a team around the philosophy of doing things around this great backcourt we supposedly have. But here is the ultimate revenge against Paxson. Who in his prize backcourt wouldn't be toyed with by DANNY AINGE in his prime? Really ask yourself that. Is Gordon or Hinrich really any better than Ainge? Do either have the potential to be as good as Dennis Johnson if they absolutely max out? No and no. Even Lawrence Holmes was asking, who are the Bulls going to build around? Does any one guy distinguish himself from the others? I'm sure I'll get some reply about how good Luol Deng is. Really? I've seen Luol Deng get abused pretty regularly by players he should be holding his own against to warrant this reputation of his.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> Another thing I find amusing: You guys find the draft as our savior and our only chance to get better. But answer me this, how many BIG MEN have come out in the past couple years and have had an IMMEDIATE impact on their team???


Looking around the league, the NBA draft is the #1 way for teams to escape the gutter. LeBron saved the Cavs...Wade saved the Heat...Pierce saved the Celtics (for a while)...Kobe, Yao, Duncan, Dirk...the list goes on and on. All these guys were the result of teams DRAFTING them. 

I'm not a huge fan of trades. Obviously it's necessary sometimes, but the whole concept of trading is that you typically give up as much as you receive. That's not much of a way to get better. The draft gives you talent without losing anything. Having a top 5 pick in almost any draft is a very good chance to get better...I'm not seeing what's so "amusing" about that. Them's the facts.

There are 3 big men, in my opinion, who would quite possibly make an immediate impact for the Bulls: 1) Tiago Splitter - 21 years old, tons of high-level Euro experience, 6'11, athletic, reputation as a good defender, skilled offensively, and a consummate team player. 
2) LaMarcus Aldridge - Think Chris Bosh his rookie year...he'll use his size and athletic ability to make things happen and contribute, even if his offense needs a little more seasoning. 
3) Shelden Williams - Debated ad nauseum here, but you can't deny that he's physically ready for the NBA. The Antonio Davis comparison is dead on; you'll get tough defense and rebounding at the very least.

Bargnani is another big with star potential, but he needs more time. I'm hoping Splitter is our guy...I think he has the perfect balance of contributing now and providing high potential down the road. 

I'm of the philosophy that there's multiple ways to build a contender. I've never been totally sold on the idea of "building around" any one player. How many superstar driven teams are there who fall into the mediocre category? Quite a few. Seems to me that the best teams assemble a group of players who complement each other (with alot of talent thrown in obviousy). The Bulls have some excellent complimentary players, but we're just so darn weak in a few areas (a starting PF, a backup C, a versatile backup SG)...it's up to Pax to plug those holes. We have the means to do it.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> If by rookie you mean 6th year, then yes, you are correct


Maybe I should buy you a sarcasm detector...


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Looking around the league, the NBA draft is the #1 way for teams to escape the gutter. LeBron saved the Cavs...Wade saved the Heat...Pierce saved the Celtics (for a while)...Kobe, Yao, Duncan, Dirk...the list goes on and on. All these guys were the result of teams DRAFTING them.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of trades. Obviously it's necessary sometimes, but the whole concept of trading is that you typically give up as much as you receive. That's not much of a way to get better. The draft gives you talent without losing anything. Having a top 5 pick in almost any draft is a very good chance to get better...I'm not seeing what's so "amusing" about that. Them's the facts.
> 
> ...


Splitter? REally? He's this great savior I should be sold? He's been on NBAdraft.net for like 4 years now up until the declaration date. Splitter. He along with Al Harrington or Nazr Mohammed in free agency is going to make us a "real contender" next year like many of Paxson's fans say we will be? I should be drooling over that? Yeah, ok.

I'm not advocating a trade per se, but the idea that THIS draft is going to save us? Wrong draft.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> The defenses get more defensive as we wallow deeper into mediocrity. Now Pax fandom can't just admit that maybe they aren't right about every friggin thing. Now it becomes an argument of "well you don't know the man's schedule. Yeah buddy, I'm sure he's trying to make us worse."
> 
> Pay attention. *With Paxson and his most ardent fans in the media and on this board it always comes back to the same thing -- THEY CONFUSE EFFORT WITH RESULTS.* Yes Paxson is likely not affirmatively trying to destroy the Bulls. Wippee. I think you can say that about most NBA GMs if not all of them. Their intentions are certainly not to make their teams worse. Paxson is "trying." Good for him. So is everyone else who does their job. I tend to not look at what 90% of people are doing. Look at what the most successful 10% are doing. What is Dumars doing? Cause I'm sure he's doing everything Paxson is and then some. What I'd want to know is what is the "then some." Same with Walsh, etc.
> 
> Honestly, Paxson has chosen to build a team around the philosophy of doing things around this great backcourt we supposedly have. But here is the ultimate revenge against Paxson. Who in his prize backcourt wouldn't be toyed with by DANNY AINGE in his prime? Really ask yourself that. Is Gordon or Hinrich really any better than Ainge? Do either have the potential to be as good as Dennis Johnson if they absolutely max out? No and no. Even Lawrence Holmes was asking, who are the Bulls going to build around? Does any one guy distinguish himself from the others? I'm sure I'll get some reply about how good Luol Deng is. Really? I've seen Luol Deng get abused pretty regularly by players he should be holding his own against to warrant this reputation of his.


I have yet to find some Paxson quote saying we have a great backcourt, filled with untouchable players. 
Maybe he is drinking Pippentorade.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Splitter? REally? He's this great savior I should be sold? He's been on NBAdraft.net for like 4 years now up until the declaration date. Splitter. He along with Al Harrington or Nazr Mohammed in free agency is going to make us a "real contender" next year like many of Paxson's fans say we will be? I should be drooling over that? Yeah, ok.
> 
> I'm not advocating a trade per se, but the idea that THIS draft is going to save us? Wrong draft.


Eddy Curry is going to save us? Wrong.

Next.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> Maybe I should buy you a sarcasm detector...


I didn't read the whole topic, just that one post. What else am I supposed to think you meant?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> I didn't read the whole topic, just that one post. What else am I supposed to think you meant?



No problem. He argued about Griffin being a veteran presence, one that we lost, but its like they always look at the glass half empty. Thats why I said that about Allen, though he isnt the kind of veteran AD or Griffin represent, he isnt a rookie or guy that you will confuse with our kids.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> No problem. He argued about Griffin being a veteran presence, one that we lost, but its like they always look at the glass half empty. Thats why I said that about Allen, though he isnt the kind of veteran AD or Griffin represent, he isnt a rookie or guy that you will confuse with our kids.


got it, cool

I never really thought of losing Griff's vet presence as a factor before...


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Eddy Curry is going to save us? Wrong.
> 
> Next.


LOL are you serious? 47-35 buddy. Next. Eddy was no great player or savior, but we got bent over in the deal for him. If we got anything close to equivalent value I'd have been fine with the "reasons we HAD to do the deal," but we got Marcus Fizer's fat brother, a no-show, and a draft pick in a crappy draft. Eddy Curry >>>>>> than a chump named Tiago Splitter. I think when it comes to Splitter people just like saying his name lol. "TIAGO!" Ooooo. Chump. Oh did I mention Antonio Davis, our enforcer, emotional leader and heart and soul, was in that trade too? Sure was.

The Bulls were 47-35 last year. Tyson was allowed to thrive in a lesser role for the whole season, Gordon was allowed to be an offensive afterthought with Eddy establishing the offense and we had teams on their toes from open to the buzzer. We're 22-29 this year. And I don't see how a Tiago Splitter is going to change that all that much. You can only have 5 players on the floor at once. 

Deny deny deny all you want with Eddy Curry. He's better than Tyson Chandler and he was part of a winning formula for us.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> I have yet to find some Paxson quote saying we have a great backcourt, filled with untouchable players.
> Maybe he is drinking Pippentorade.


Seriously, do you think your method of arguing impresses anyone? You now need a direct Paxson quotation to establish anything about the situation? What is he? The Dalai Lama of the NBA? I don't need Paxson to state specifically in a press release that this team is built around the backcourt, everybody knows it. Look you don't have to like that your boy is going down in flames, but please don't try to act like we need a quote from the horses mouth to attack his mediocrity. You are aware that we're 2-6 in our last 8 and 22-29 overall right? 

I have yet to find a direct quote by anyone in the media or NBA saying that Joe Dumars is a better GM than John Paxson, but that doesn't mean the whole friggin world doesn't know for a fact that it's true.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

The Bulls played without Eddy Curry much of last season and still make the playoffs and got plenty of wins. They could have eliminated the Wizards without him. 

And how are Curry's Knicks doing these days? And what about Curry? Is he pulling down 10 rebounds with all that brick shooters he has around him? Are we going going to see 40+ wins in New York? I guess the answer is "Yes".

BTW The majority, not Bulls or Knicks fans, will tell you the Bulls got the best end of that deal. 

So Im OK with that trade, though I dont think I.Thomas agrees with me. And thats good news for the Bulls!

Its not that hard to conclude that former Eddy lovers are now Bulls haters. Good for them, they will dissapear and join those Crawford apologists. Someday, sometime.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Seriously, do you think your method of arguing impresses anyone? You now need a direct Paxson quotation to establish anything about the situation? What is he? The Dalai Lama of the NBA? I don't need Paxson to state specifically in a press release that this team is built around the backcourt, everybody knows it. Look you don't have to like that your boy is going down in flames, but please don't try to act like we need a quote from the horses mouth to attack his mediocrity. You are aware that we're 2-6 in our last 8 and 22-29 overall right?
> 
> I have yet to find a direct quote by anyone in the media or NBA saying that Joe Dumars is a better GM than John Paxson, but that doesn't mean the whole friggin world doesn't know for a fact that it's true.


No, no, you are concluding that because you see we only have Chandler upfront and some more talent in our backcourt. No one said the Bulls have a great backcourt, only you. Paxson never said it. Same for Skiles. 

You can cry all you want, the fact is the Bulls wont re-acquire Eddy Curry because the Knicks are winning and they wont give up on him. However, his coach DID SAY (unlike Paxson) that Curry is his franchise player and, well, we can see the results. Playoffs, baby! Im sure the Garden missed those Ewing days. Not anymore.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> The Bulls played without Eddy Curry much of last season and still make the playoffs and got plenty of wins. They could have eliminated the Wizards without him.


They could have? They didn't. The Bulls were exposed badly. The Bulls had Eddy last year and had a good record in the games he played alone. They don't have him this year and they are 22-29. End of discussion. 



> And how are Curry's Knicks doing these days? And what about Curry?


Did I ever claim that they were doing great? Just because the Knicks aren't doing good doesn't mean the Bulls are as good as they were last year because of the trade. It IS possible for both teams to get worse as the result of a trade. Eddy Curry misses Hinrich, Deng and Noce as much as they miss him.



> Is he pulling down 10 rebounds with all that brick shooters he has around him? Are we going going to see 40+ wins in New York? I guess the answer is "Yes".


Is Chandler scoring ten points a game? Hell is HIS RPG even up to 10? You keep going to 82games.com buddy, I'll stick to WATCHING THE GAMES. 



> BTW The majority, not Bulls or Knicks fans, will tell you the Bulls got the best end of that deal.


Really? Where is this majority speaking? I'd like to listen to their discussion. Cite something please, since you demand direct quotes from Paxson. Paxson got bent over. Does it matter to me that Isiah is such a terrible GM that even with bending Pax over his team is god awful? No. I'm a Bulls fan who wants championships, not to merely be better than the Knicks. You think Michael Jordan beat the Knicks and was like "well, we'd like a ring, but we're pretty much cool now, we DID beat the Knicks." Nope. 



> Its not that hard to conclude that former Eddy lovers are now Bulls haters. Good for them, they will dissapear and join those Crawford apologists. Someday, sometime.


I don't hate the Bulls. Be careful son. You don't know the first thing about what this franchise is about. If you sat in a room full of a bunch of Bulls fans talking about the 1993 Eastern Conference Finals or the 1990 Eastern Conference Finals you wouldn't know what to say. The Bulls to me are Michael Jordan and what he created. And I didn't come up with that in 1996 or something. Like Orlando said "you knew it from DAY ONE!" And so did we. I love how you conveniently throw the Crawford and Curry fans together. I'm not a Crawford fan. He sucks. But you see, I don't have to have ALL of my basketball opinions dictated by a set of values. I, like most logical fans, have the ability to step back from the type of guy a player is OFF the court and say "is he good or not?" Because that's all it's about. Eddy Curry provides something VERY rare and the Bulls were good at filling in on his weaknesses. Jamal Crawford provided uhhh, nothing really. They're different players in every single way. 

Before you start talking about being a Bulls fan, why don't you answer some of these questions:

1. In the 1991 NBA Finals the Bulls found themselves down 1-0 and in need of a spark. Jordan was having a hard time getting it going and needed to look for his teammates. Who was a major threat in the first quarter of game 2 that took some of the heat off of Jordan? 

2. In game 5 of the 1993 NBA Finals what player was switched onto Jordan to create defensive mismatches, giving Michael problems with his speed and quickness.

3. In game 4 of the 1992 NBA Finals, the Bulls were off to a commanding lead before Clifford Robinson fouled a Bull and then Jerome Kersey came in a milisecond later to commit a flagrant penalty 1. This ignited the Blazers into a victory. Who did these two players foul, and what Trailblazer said after the game "They probably over there talking about giving games away. Tell them to keep giving the games away, we'll take em."

4. In the 1992 NBA Eastern Conference Semifinals Scottie Pippen was clotheslined by one Knickerbocker and then almost got in a fight with another one. Which Knick was it. 

5. Where did Scottie Pippen finish in MVP voting in the 1994 season. Name the teams starting lineup that year.

We'll start with these questions. Then you can talk to me about what it is to be a Bulls fan.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> No, no, you are concluding that because you see we only have Chandler upfront and some more talent in our backcourt. No one said the Bulls have a great backcourt, only you. Paxson never said it. Same for Skiles.


Ok so the fact that Paxson is a guard and he hired a guard to coach a team that has more lottery picks at... du dummmmmm... GUARD than in any other aspect of the team, means nothing huh? Everyone knows the Bulls are built around their backcourt.



> You can cry all you want, the fact is the Bulls wont re-acquire Eddy Curry because the Knicks are winning and they wont give up on him. However, his coach DID SAY (unlike Paxson) that Curry is his franchise player and, well, we can see the results. Playoffs, baby! Im sure the Garden missed those Ewing days. Not anymore.


And you can defend mediocrity all you want. You know the best part about you? Next time the Bulls win 4 in a row you'll be chestbumping and talking about how the 3rd seed should be our goal. AND the next time they lose 4 in a row, you'll be "casually observing" from the perimeter. I bet there will be a whole lot of franchise changes when Jordan buys the team. They'll start with all the guys you love being shipped. Guarantee it. 

As far as Curry goes, I wouldn't expect any of the Bulls of last year to do well in his shoes. I've stated from day one that both Eddy Curry and the Bulls would be worse off from this trade. I guess maybe you can show me where I ever said the Knicks were gonna be that good.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

el chappy and pip:

unless we can keep this on the topic of whether or not pax should make a move or stand pat, as powerwoofer intended, i suggest we cool it with the attack tone. 

take the higher road. please.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok so the fact that Paxson is a guard and he hired a guard to coach a team that has more lottery picks at... du dummmmmm... GUARD than in any other aspect of the team, means nothing huh? Everyone knows the Bulls are built around their backcourt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Bulls want to add size, they lose Curry, Davis, so its no secret they are thin there. We dont have franchise players, we are building a team and our main pieces are guards. Nothing else. They arent great, the Bulls arent great.

And I dont love Hinrich, I dont love Gordon, I dont love Deng, I dont love Paxson, I dont love Skiles. You have something inside your head thats not working properly and draws conclusions that exist only there, inside your head. 

With Curry is about size. We miss that. His scoring would also be a plus, but the Knicks shouldnt worry about him because they already got a better big man than him in Frye. 

When your GM is Thomas and your franchise player is Curry, you know you are heading in the right direction.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> el chappy and pip:
> 
> unless we can keep this on the topic of whether or not pax should make a move or stand pat, as powerwoofer intended, i suggest we cool it with the attack tone.
> 
> take the higher road. please.


Its hard to mantain a conversation with Curry fundamentalists, so I guess you are right. I will try to ignore him.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I'm sure I'll get some reply about how good Luol Deng is. Really? I've seen Luol Deng get abused pretty regularly by players he should be holding his own against to warrant this reputation of his.


I'm glad to see someone shares the same view as me.


> Looking around the league, the NBA draft is the #1 way for teams to escape the gutter. LeBron saved the Cavs...Wade saved the Heat...Pierce saved the Celtics (for a while)...Kobe, Yao, Duncan, Dirk...the list goes on and on. All these guys were the result of teams DRAFTING them.


That's great when you have that type of draft class, but this draft has one of the biggest question marks next to it. Who do you honestly pick?

The sad part of this all is that this offseason is the only time anything drastic will happen, as I doubt Paxson will be a part of any blockbuster trades. He comes across as a person who'll calculate everything and go over if its worthwhile or not, by the time this is done the opportunity is gone.

What amuses me, probably a month or so ago there was a thread which basically said Kenyon Martin would be an ideal piece to have (probably alot earlier, wasn't that far after Sheed destroyed us). Sometime later, rumours have Denver trying to ship him to us, and presto, nothing.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

I want to make this statement about Eddy Curry. "Eddy Curry will never be a great basketball player, NEVER!" Why? Cause he doesn't care about the game of basketball, he doesn't love the game of basketball, the thing he loves about playing pro ball, MONEY! That is all he cares about, he doesn't care about winning titles or becoming dominant. He doesn't have the passion for the game. 

I agree with what Norm Van Lier said on ESPN 1000 after a game during the 03-04 season, that someone told Eddy Curry, when he was young, that he should play basketball cause he was big and he could make a living off of it. That he never showed the passion of other players. Don't you think it's kinda funny that Curry got in shape for his CONTRACT season? 

He is producing the same numbers in New York that he did here. Nothing has changed about him, he is not a franchise player nor will he ever be. He will always be a "talented" player that never reached his potential. 

Does anybody wonder why Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'neal, and Lebron James have been so successful coming out of high school? Passion for the game, passion to win at the highest level! That's the difference between talented players and GREAT players! 

On to Joe Dumars being this great GM of the NBA. Yes, Joe Dumars is a good GM but he has a bit of luck on his side. 

-When Grant Hill decided to leave Detroit for Orlando, Dumars didn't want to lose him for nothing so he did a sign and trade for some role players, one that was a decent rebounder and defender that had been undrafted. I don't think Joe looked at him and said "He is going to be the best defender and rebounder in this league in a couple of years." Ben Wallace became more than Joe Dumars expected.

-"Big Shot" Billups moved from team to team, just another young NBA journeyman. Until Dumars signed him up and he found the right team for his game.

-Seriously does anybody think that a smart GM would have traded Rip Hamilton early in his career for Jerry Stackhouse? No, but some of the people on here think that GM should take over for Pax if he is fired!

-Rasheed Wallace was giving away by Atlanta, after being giving away by Portland cause he was a trouble maker. Then Rasheed, who still leads the league in Technical fouls, gets into a winning situation where he doesn't have to be the man, as he was in Portland, and he becomes a great NBA star.

-T. Prince was a decent player at Kentucky, fell all the way to the end of the 1st round and landed right into Dumars lap. Yeah, everybody was talking how Prince was going to become this unbelievable NBA mismatch for other teams!

-Dumars pick of Darko has been so great for the Pistons, passing up Melo, Wade, and Bosh for the European sensation that has had a great NBA career.

Dumars has done a great job in Detroit, but luck has been on his side.

Another thing about having to have a superstar to win in this league. Can you all tell me one player you can take off of Detroit and put on another team, and that player will be the Superstar who will lead them to the NBA title? 

If anybody can give me a very good answer, I would love to hear it.

Everybody wants to believe Pax is doing nothing at all, that he is trying to take this team backwards. Well, OK, let's start trading away our young talented players. 

Just like another GM did here by trading Elton Brand away! Trading Ron Artest and Brad Miller away for the great Jalen Rose! How bout bringing in an unproven college coach! How bout running this franchise into the ground where we never saw more than 30 wins in a season!

Everybody seems to forget that the brawl in Detroit ruined Indiana's season! That Richard Jefferson was out pretty much all season for the Nets! That injuries hit the Bucks last year! We took advantage of a lot of things to get 47 victories.

Also, this year, if we hit a couple of our free throws and make one or two plays, we could possibly be 5 to 10 games over .500 right now? That we were closing out games last year that we can't seem to close this year. And it's not because of Eddy Curry. 

The only thing that matters to me as a Bulls fan is that this team cares about winning and hates to lose. Although this team has lost more than they have won this year, they do care about winning. That's a far cry from what we were a couple of years ago. Paxson has instilled a winning attitude among this team and he is trying to build on that. 

I think by standing pat, we still grow and possibly make the playoffs. Get a good pick or two, and maybe sign a decent free agent. See where we go from there cause a trade can quickly derail things in a heart beat, if the wrong player is brought into Chicago. 

Do we need size, yes we do but why give away some vital pieces of a team for what I perceive as short term success?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

BullsAttitude said:


> I want to make this statement about Eddy Curry. "Eddy Curry will never be a great basketball player, NEVER!" Why? Cause he doesn't care about the game of basketball, he doesn't love the game of basketball, the thing he loves about playing pro ball, MONEY! That is all he cares about, he doesn't care about winning titles or becoming dominant. He doesn't have the passion for the game.
> 
> I agree with what Norm Van Lier said on ESPN 1000 after a game during the 03-04 season, that someone told Eddy Curry, when he was young, that he should play basketball cause he was big and he could make a living off of it. That he never showed the passion of other players. Don't you think it's kinda funny that Curry got in shape for his CONTRACT season?
> 
> ...


And who is a franchise player on the Bulls? 

And how does this change the differential from what we were last year to what we are now? Does this trade make us better because the Knicks are worse? Are they functions of each other. 

And what happened to us drooling over this draft and being real contenders next year. Now we'll get a good pick or two and sign someone


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

A few fundamentlas need to be revisited:

1. Don't attack or bait.

2. Don't through out wild trades that can't be done due to salary cap and CBA restrictions.

3. Please don't assume any of us KNOW what Paxson is or isn't doing (I can't believe I'm defending Paxson).

4. Don't bash the draft till you know who's in the draft. Every year the mantra is "this draft's weak after # (insert pick before Bulls pick).

5. Don't bash prospects you know nothing about as if you do know something about them.

6. Breathe Deep, count to ten and then exhale.

If none of that works, find yourself some balloon animals to rough up.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. No knowledge apparently makes someone an authority.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Splitter? REally? He's this great savior I should be sold? He's been on NBAdraft.net for like 4 years now up until the declaration date. Splitter. He along with Al Harrington or Nazr Mohammed in free agency is going to make us a "real contender" next year like many of Paxson's fans say we will be? I should be drooling over that? Yeah, ok.
> 
> I'm not advocating a trade per se, but the idea that THIS draft is going to save us? Wrong draft.


Who's calling anyone a savior? I just spent part of that post talking about how there's multiple ways to build a contender...how you don't necessarily need to "build around" any one player. You'd think the Pistons would've proven that by now. The Pistons' 2 big guys include a guy with zero offensive skill and another with good, but not dominating, offensive skill. However, both play defense, rebound, and do a great job helping their teammates score. The guys at draftexpress (w/ alot of scouting experience overseas, from what I've heard) call Splitter a lock for the top 10 and rave about his all-around game. You're entitled to your opinion...feel free to bash Splitter all you want, but I think he'll be one of the top, if not the best, big men in this draft. Even the worst draft in recent NBA history (2000) had bigs like Kenyon Martin and Jamaal Magloire who could help us. 

I'm not sure what the uproar about Al Harrington is. He's a young talent, capable of playing the 3 or 4. Surround him with some size and he could be a find for us. Obviously though, we have different models in mind when building a team. That's cool...like I said, there's more than one way.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I'm not sure what the uproar about Al Harrington is. He's a young talent, capable of playing the 3 or 4. Surround him with some size and he could be a find for us. Obviously though, we have different models in mind when building a team. That's cool...like I said, there's more than one way.


The uproar is that he's a tweener, he's not a true big. We need post scoring and when you consider his statistics in that category, he really isn't the answer to that.
Though either way I believe we'll sign him, I'm just not sold on him.
If we get Al, we'd really need to get Gooden aswell. I don't know if its possible with the amount of money either one is likely to command.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

step said:


> The uproar is that he's a tweener, he's not a true big. We need post scoring and when you consider his statistics in that category, he really isn't the answer to that.
> Though either way I believe we'll sign him, I'm just not sold on him.
> If we get Al, we'd really need to get Gooden aswell. I don't know if its possible with the amount of money either one is likely to command.


I agree he's a tweener...alot like an Antawn Jamison or Shareef Abdur-Rahim. They've drawn alot of criticism over the years as well.

However, I think if you balance these types of guys out with some BIG guys who can rebound and play physical, then there aren't many teams who can take advantage of you. Al Harrington would probably present match-up problems for some teams with his quickness and perimeter skill. But if there's a team who's trying to exploit that he's a bit smaller, you bring in your bigger lineup. 

The simple plan of a) signing Al, b) sign a backup big (Ely? Mohammad? Both are Chicagoans, both are big), c) draft another big (Splitter/Shelden/Aldridge), and d) draft a versatile 2-guard could end up really balancing out this team's weaknesses. Maybe that would help with our late game meltdowns. The result is that Al becomes your inside-outside threat, with Chandler/Splitter/Ely (all 6'11 and bigger) are your size. 

Ok, now bash away! :clown:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

It's a great theory, I just don't see Al being the guy that would pull it off. 
Though I wouldn't mind having him on the team, just not at the rumoured price.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Looking around the league, the NBA draft is the #1 way for teams to escape the gutter. LeBron saved the Cavs...Wade saved the Heat...Pierce saved the Celtics (for a while)...Kobe, Yao, Duncan, Dirk...the list goes on and on. All these guys were the result of teams DRAFTING them.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of trades. Obviously it's necessary sometimes, but the whole concept of trading is that you typically give up as much as you receive. That's not much of a way to get better. The draft gives you talent without losing anything. Having a top 5 pick in almost any draft is a very good chance to get better...I'm not seeing what's so "amusing" about that. Them's the facts.
> 
> ...


 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to yodurk again.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> LOL are you serious? 47-35 buddy. Next. Eddy was no great player or savior, but we got bent over in the deal for him. If we got anything close to equivalent value I'd have been fine with the "reasons we HAD to do the deal," but we got Marcus Fizer's fat brother, a no-show, and a draft pick in a crappy draft.


Honestly, Sweets + TT's expiring deal + really high pick + swap option > Eddy + AD (w/his expiring deal)

Obviously, you have to draft properly to make the deal better, but it's ludicrous to think that it will definitely end up being lopsided in IT's favor. It's not like Eddy is turning around the franchise over there.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Honestly, Sweets + TT's expiring deal + really high pick + swap option > Eddy + AD (w/his expiring deal)
> 
> Obviously, you have to draft properly to make the deal better, but it's ludicrous to think that it will definitely end up being lopsided in IT's favor. It's not like Eddy is turning around the franchise over there.


We should always add the privilege of not having to pay Eddy's exorbitant salary (and thereby having cap space) as another benefit of the trade.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to yodurk again.


Same here. That was a great post.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Honestly, Sweets + TT's expiring deal + really high pick + swap option > Eddy + AD (w/his expiring deal)
> 
> Obviously, you have to draft properly to make the deal better, but it's ludicrous to think that it will definitely end up being lopsided in IT's favor. It's not like Eddy is turning around the franchise over there.



I disagree. Big men who can lead the league in fg% or close to it are very rare in this league. Players with size, atheleticism, soft hands, post moves..very rare in this league. Sweets has some talent but he isn't in the same hempisphere as Eddy. TT's expiring deal will probably be just that..expiring and not giving the Bulls anything other than capspace which they would have received just by letting Eddy walk. The high pick is nice but this is a weak draft and I will be surprised if we actually get someone better than Curry in the draft...very surprised. The swap option could be nice but I have a feeling the Knicks will get it together before that rolls around. I think it actually is pretty lopsided in IT's favor. I also think it is the best deal Pax could pull off given his stringent DNA test demands. Eddy isn't turning the franchise over there around but he has played pretty well this year and is rebounding the ball and getting to the line, scoring at a high percentage in the post, all things the Bulls lack. And anyone who knows the NBA should realize that Curry's contract is eminently reasonable for a young big man.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Honestly, Sweets + TT's expiring deal + really high pick + swap option > Eddy + AD (w/his expiring deal)
> 
> Obviously, you have to draft properly to make the deal better, but it's ludicrous to think that it will definitely end up being lopsided in IT's favor. It's not like Eddy is turning around the franchise over there.


Yes so far what we've gotten is not good (Sweetney, Thomas). So you're correct in that it could all be turned around by the draft. However, before people (not you) make presumptions to that effect, shouldn't Pax actually MAKE the picks and have them work out. 

As far as Eddy, I NEVER SAID HE WOULD. He needs his old Bulls teammates as much as they need him. Eddy can succeed greatly with defenders and rebounders around him at all positions. He doesn't have that in New York, therefore I'm not surprised at all and never thought the Knicks would be very good.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I disagree. Big men who can lead the league in fg% or close to it are very rare in this league. Players with size, atheleticism, soft hands, post moves..very rare in this league. Sweets has some talent but he isn't in the same hempisphere as Eddy. TT's expiring deal will probably be just that..expiring and not giving the Bulls anything other than capspace which they would have received just by letting Eddy walk. The high pick is nice but this is a weak draft and I will be surprised if we actually get someone better than Curry in the draft...very surprised. The swap option could be nice but I have a feeling the Knicks will get it together before that rolls around. I think it actually is pretty lopsided in IT's favor. I also think it is the best deal Pax could pull off given his stringent DNA test demands. Eddy isn't turning the franchise over there around but he has played pretty well this year and is rebounding the ball and getting to the line, scoring at a high percentage in the post, all things the Bulls lack. And anyone who knows the NBA should realize that Curry's contract is eminently reasonable for a young big man.


 
I didn't say anything about the reasonableness of Curry's contract. I don't buy the "weak draft" routine. There is no reason now to say the Knicks will turn it around next year, other than faith in LB's system. Who knows what the swap deal could garner next year? I don't. But it's there in case we need it. 

I don't want to continue with the Curry debate really. I'm not saying he's not talented. I'm just saying that I think if you look at the trade a couple of years from now. Pax may very well have gotten the better end of it. Nobody will really know for some time, however.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I didn't say anything about the reasonableness of Curry's contract. I don't buy the "weak draft" routine. There is no reason now to say the Knicks will turn it around next year, other than faith in LB's system. Who knows what the swap deal could garner next year? I don't. But it's there in case we need it.
> 
> I don't want to continue with the Curry debate really. I'm not saying he's not talented. I'm just saying that I think if you look at the trade a couple of years from now. Pax may very well have gotten the better end of it. Nobody will really know for some time, however.



Thats true, it is entirely possible. I don't see it as being likely but if the Knicks suck next season and end up with the #1, the Bulls swap and get Oden. Or maybe they end up picking 5th or 6th and end up with a stud big man regardless? Or, maybe they draft Aldrdige or Bargnani this year and they are better than expected? Your definitley right that it IS possible Pax ends up winning the trade...I just think that it isn't likely. 

And the contract comments were more directed to a follow up post saying we didn't have to pay Eddy that big contract.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> ... TT's expiring deal will probably be just that..expiring and not giving the Bulls anything other than capspace which they would have received just by letting Eddy walk.


This is not really the case. In terms of contracts with the Curry trade:

Sweets = Curry
Thomas = Davis

So, it really is not an accurte way of looking at things to state that TT's deal is equivalent to letting Curry walk at the end of this year. TT's deal is the equivalent of resigning Davis for the vet min or letting Davis retire.




> The high pick is nice but this is a weak draft and I will be surprised if we actually get someone better than Curry in the draft...very surprised. The swap option could be nice but I have a feeling the Knicks will get it together before that rolls around. I think it actually is pretty lopsided in IT's favor. I also think it is the best deal Pax could pull off given his stringent DNA test demands. Eddy isn't turning the franchise over there around but he has played pretty well this year and is rebounding the ball and getting to the line, scoring at a high percentage in the post, all things the Bulls lack.


Again, kind of shortsighted on your part. The trade will be the result of the TWO players we receive in this draft and the next (should we decide to excercise our option to switch picks). If I recall, you thought the Knicks were gonna be pretty good this season. You think they're going to "turn it around" next year. I don't think so. Relative to the rest of the league, they're gonna be even worse in 2007. I keep hearing the same mantra from folks such as yourself. Eddy is scoring and rebounding yada, yada, yada. He still fouls too much. He still is a bad defender. The term assist isn't even a part of his vocabulary and supposedly six rebounds a game from a big, athletic seven-footer is a great thing. He's really no different a player than he was here. What a shocker there!



> And anyone who knows the NBA should realize that Curry's contract is eminently reasonable for a young big man.


You really like to use this whole "anyone who knows anything about {insert whatever you think you know more about here}" thing waaayyyy too much. Maybe you might want to use a different turn of phrase. (just a suggestion)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its not even a Curry/AD debate anymore. What's done is done. Our briefly winning team is now a loser again. 

Its a Bulls are a loser again and how do we fix it debate. 

We’re back to the same Cap Space and lotto picks solution that Krause made a run with. Except he was going after TMAC and Duncan as FAs and we’re going after Al Harrington and Joel Przybilla.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not even a Curry/AD debate anymore. What's done is done.


Really?!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> We’re back to the same Cap Space and lotto picks solution that Krause made a run with. Except he was going after TMAC and Duncan as FAs and we’re going after Al Harrington and Joel Przybilla.


There isn't anyone better to go after in free agency. Krause was chasing (not to be confused with signing) high profile free agents while putting a 15 win team on the floor. Atleast Paxson is putting a 35-40 win team on the floor while having all these assets. This summer is crunchtime for Paxson.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> They could have? They didn't. The Bulls were exposed badly. The Bulls had Eddy last year and had a good record in the games he played alone. They don't have him this year and they are 22-29. End of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> [strike]I don't hate the Bulls. Be careful son. You don't know the first thing about what this franchise is about. If you sat in a room full of a bunch of Bulls fans talking about the 1993 Eastern Conference Finals or the 1990 Eastern Conference Finals you wouldn't know what to say.[/strike]


Careful! Talking in this manner has nothing to do with your arguement or his arguement. Disagree with him all you want, but saying things like this adds nothing to a dabate. It does not strengthen your arguement in any way whatsoever and is speculative! Please refrain from this manner of posting.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> A few fundamentlas need to be revisited:
> 
> 1. Don't attack or bait.
> 
> ...


Very good!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

As for the way I feel? You may be right. You might not be right. Draft picks can help. They can add a lot to a trade. That could happen at deadline or this summer so its not a gimme we keep the picks. We are young enough the way it is. If we sign a big man out right and keep the picks whats wrong with that? Someone may surprise us and allow us to trade a player we already have for a player that will help us at another position. A lot can happen. Then again, the sky may be falling...but I am calm until it hits me in the head.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I liked this line that I heard yesterday, and I agree with it.

"When you start subscribing to 'anything can happen' then you are a bad general manager. Well, its all in God's hands now."


There is no vision, IMO. There was no plan, IMO, other than the backed into a corner, make the best of it decision making that I think is going on right now.

Being crippled by indecision and a lack of vision and putting off a decision until you absolutely have to make one can look an awful lot like staying put from the outside.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I dont get the sense that there is no vision, no plan. He had a plan before Eddy Curry being traded. I think he wanted to keep him. 

His plan as he has said over and over again is to keep the young team together and let them grow. He is doing that. He wont break the team up unless its for someone really good. Obviously he considers someone a lot better than Pierce to be that type of player. 

I have always thought his plan was for this summer originally. I always thought he wanted to get Peja. But peja's game has slid somewhat since then. I thought by the way he drafted the summer before last he built this team for this summer. Last years success was sudden and probably unexpected. But he is continuing with his plan imo. Holding course so to speak. However, Peja is out of the picture so surely he has some other players in mind.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Rudy Gay :biggrin:


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> There isn't anyone better to go after in free agency. Krause was chasing (not to be confused with signing) high profile free agents while putting a 15 win team on the floor. Atleast Paxson is putting a 35-40 win team on the floor while having all these assets. This summer is crunchtime for Paxson.


the duncan/g.hill chase wasn't serious i agree with that. but i think the t-mac chase was genuine. krause's biggest miscalculation was underestimating the salary cap rules. if i recall correctly the year we went all out was the same year the league put a cap on salaries. krause wanted t-mac the most and if reinsdorf/krause had a chance to outbid anyone for t-mac they would have. krause also overestimated the allure of playing for Chicago. Big market opportunites, millions of fans starving for a hero to worship. oh well


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Jeez, yet another thread turns into a heated discussion on how the Bulls miss a 14/6/0/1 player who is putting up those monster numbers on the 2nd worst team in the league. Big effing surprise.

:sigh:

Aldridge shouldn't have much trouble putting up 14/6 as a rookie. By the time Bargnani is 23, he'll easily be putting up 14/6. Hell, we could give Paul Davis 27 minutes next season as a rookie and he'd probably give us 14/6.

:sigh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wait till next year. Next year will be great!

Bulls fans are forced to sound like Cubs fans now-a-days.

It seemed better worrying about locking up home court in the first round last season than hoping some teenager can replace the 16 points in the paint that Curry gave us on our only winning team since MJ. 

But, that's just me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

....


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I don't know what "wait 'til next year" has to do with the thread, but whatever...

:sigh:

The guys who could be traded for now- like Nene or Gooden or KMart or Darko- aren't worth giving up the Knicks' pick for, period. They wouldn't help us *that* much this season, not enough to give up a top-3 pick to get Aldridge or Bargnani.

So if anyone cares to discuss the topic of the thread, no I don't think that standing pat will hurt us.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I don't know what "wait 'til next year" has to do with the thread, but whatever...


Staying put = wait till next year.

Clearly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Aldridge shouldn't have much trouble putting up 14/6 as a rookie. By the time Bargnani is 23, he'll easily be putting up 14/6. Hell, we could give Paul Davis 27 minutes next season as a rookie and he'd probably give us 14/6.


Sweetney wasn't supposed to have too much trouble putting up 14/6, either. Now that Skiles has narrowed his rotation and the games matter more and more, so far in 2006 "Sweets" is putting up a robust 5.6/5 on .372 shooting with 6 DNP-CDs.

I'm not saying Aldridge, Bargnani, or Davis can't or won't put up 14/6 (or better). Perhaps, however, it isn't as easy as falling off a log. Or can you offer another explanation as to why Sweetney has fallen well short of what you were practically guaranteeing he would accomplish?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Yeah, I know, 47 wins, 3rd best record in the East, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Yeah, maybe the Bulls should do what the Cubs would do, trade Dontrelle Willis for the short-term benefit of Matt Clement.

Rinse. 

Repeat.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know, 47 wins, 3rd best record in the East, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.


Does this reference to 47 wins have anything to do with your preseason win prediction of 47 wins for this years Bulls team?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Sweetney wasn't supposed to have too much trouble putting up 14/6, either. Now that Skiles has narrowed his rotation and the games matter more and more, so far in 2006 "Sweets" is putting up a robust 5.6/5 on .372 shooting with 6 DNP-CDs.
> 
> I'm not saying Aldridge, Bargnani, or Davis can't or won't put up 14/6 (or better). Perhaps, however, it isn't as easy as falling off a log. Or can you offer another explanation as to why Sweetney has fallen well short of what you were practically guaranteeing he would accomplish?


Yawn.

I don't know what Sweets has to do with this thread, either.

But let's get personal, that always helps.

And let's lie while we're at it, I never *guaranteed* a damned thing about Sweets. I said what I *thought* he would do based on his career stats, since I steadfastly insisted over and over that I had never watched his game and was going by his stats.

But what I *actually* said was that I expected Sweets to give us less scoring on similar shooting %, more rebounding and assists and similar blocked shots in similar minutes. 

Well, lo and behold, Sweets is giving us fewer points, more rebounds, more assists, and similar blocked shots in *9 fewer minutes*. 

If I said anything different, let's see a link or something. I am sick of you bringing us Sweets like I called him a future all-star or something.

Come on mods, can we keep this from getting personal?

IBTL. (hopefully)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I just noticed that Aldridge only averages 0.4 assists a game for the Texas Longhorns.

Such a low assist total! OMG, he’s "crap!!!!"

I know this is of critical importance to many of the Bulls fans on this board. 

Big time word of warning about this Aldridge kid.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yawn.
> 
> I don't know what Sweets has to do with this thread, either.
> 
> ...


What's personal about it?

You were wildly wrong in an earlier prediction (which was loudly and repeatedly bloviated all over the place). You are making a supremely confident prediction about Aldridge, Bargnani, et. al. that, based on the failure of your first Curry "replacement", seems like it needs to be qualified somewhat.

And let's not play "Poor Little Bullsville," either. It's embarrassing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> What's personal about it?
> 
> You were wildly wrong in an earlier prediction (which was loudly and repeatedly bloviated all over the place). You are making a supremely confident prediction about Aldridge, Bargnani, et. al. that, based on the failure of your first Curry "replacement", seems like it needs to be qualified somewhat.
> 
> And let's not play "Poor Little Bullsville," either. It's embarrassing.


 exactly.

this thread stays open.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Like I said, show me the prediction where I was wrong about Sweets.

As I pointed out in my post, I was pretty much dead on with my *actual* prediction instead of the one you are claiming I made.

But if making stuff up about me helps you to feel better, go right ahead. Of course, my prediction of Sweet's numbers has as much to do with the topic of this thread as how many games we won last season, but whatever.

You can claim it's not personal all you want, if that helps you to sleep at night. I guess I should fire off angry PM's to the mods?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

So spewing lies about a poster isn't personal?

What a joke.

This thread isn't even about Eddy, or replacing him, but whatever.

Oh, wait, yes it is about Eddy. What a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Like I said, show me the prediction where I was wrong about Sweets.


Why do you think Skiles chooses to not play Sweetney much anymore? Is Skiles making a mistake by not giving Sweetney heavier minutes, since its obvious the Bulls are missing a post presence that can put the ball in the hoop?

Do you still think the Bulls will win 47 games this season, like you did when the season started?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Everyone take a deep breath please.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)




----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I just noticed that Aldridge only averages 0.4 assists a game for the Texas Longhorns.
> 
> Such a low assist total! OMG, he’s "crap!!!!"
> 
> ...


Yeah, but what's his PER?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Does *anyone* care to discuss whether or not standing pat will hurt us? 

Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Like my intention for this topic was supposed to be, I am VERY disappointed in Pax's decisions so far. This summer was supposed to be a big test for Pax to see if he could make something of the guys he had to re-sign. No offense, but I'm a supporter of those who think Eddy was good with us, but he's bad with other teams (Knicks). Last year he had guards who could pass him the ball in the paint, and he had bigs who could help him score when the Bulls needed points. Now he's in New York, where they have ballhoggers and players who are either only in it for the money, or are still too inexperienced to make a difference.

You can quote me on this all the way: Curry is ONLY, and I mean ONLY, good when he's put into the right mix of players that can take away his weaknesses and make him a better TEAM player. I think last year worked out great because everyone knew their position, and we had a balanced line-up and some vet. presence that could guide our young guns and keep them in check during the tough times (losing streaks, the end of games). Now we are a small team DEPENDANT on our backcourt, and we have no guidance.

K4E said it perfectly: this team has no vision. Pax had a small idea of what he was gonna do this year, but now, post-Curry trade, everything has gone wrong for him. That's why I'm wondering if he's the right type of GM. Because he broke part of the team up and now we have no one to anchor our team and lead us. Plus, we have no confidence or will to win us games. A lot of things factor into making a successful team, and I have a lot of doubts that Pax can make this team successful enough to get past maybe a firsst round exit. But you never know.

If in 2 years the team still sucks, don't say I didn't tell you that Pax was a bad choice. But if Pax somehow takes this team to the nexxt level, I'll at least say that I was wrong about Pax and his abilities to make a successful basketball team.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Well, if you are basing this team solely on this season, then yes Paxson has no vision as we don't have a "big man".

Of course, if you look at it realistically that the big return on the trade is the Knicks' pick(s), I think Pax is pretty confident that he can get a "big man" over the summer. Not to mention the cap space he can use instead.

One who will be a better *all-around* big man who can do more than just score with a decent efficiency. You know, defend, block shots, pass out of a double-team, rebound, the normal things a good big man does well.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

bullsville said:


> Well, if you are basing this team solely on this season, then yes Paxson has no vision as we don't have a "big man".
> 
> Of course, if you look at it realistically that the big return on the trade is the Knicks' pick(s), I think Pax is pretty confident that he can get a "big man" over the summer. Not to mention the cap space he can use instead.
> 
> One who will be a better *all-around* big man who can do more than just score with a decent efficiency. You know, defend, block shots, pass out of a double-team, rebound, the normal things a good big man does well.


OK, who's an *all-around big man * that Pax has a chance to land this coming draft? I don't see one at all that can keep pace for an entire season and help us mature throughout next season. I may be wrong, and we may end up landing the next all-star, but until that happens, I'll stick with my opinion that Pax screwed up by trading our only big man that is a threat on the court. I know you'll have something to say about that, so I'll just wait and reply later.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

OK, let's state the obvious. Staying put could end up hurting the team...

...so could making a trade just to make a trade.

None of us (as far as I know) knows what deals are out there for the Bulls, or will be out there before the deadline, so it's hard for me, in a blissful state of ignorance, to take a stand on whether the Bulls should make a trade now or wait for the offseason to make a significant move.

While I reluctantly agree with K4E (by the way, was that you on the SCORE yesterday?) that failing to make a trade now = "wait 'til next year," with a young nucleus of good players who aren't head cases, I see no reason for desperation...yet.

I'm OK with Paxson making his move now or this offseason (yes, this season is a wash), but for the Bulls' future, as well as Paxson's, he must FILL one of the 2 need positions (big guard and starting big man) and ADDRESS the other by the beginning of next season. He has cap space, first-round draft choices and some attractive young talent as "assets" to work with. 

Patience is a virtue, but for Paxson, that doesn't extend beyond this offseason. Paxson's team overachieved last season. This year his team (and ours) is clearly a disappoinment. Honestly, I don't see a lot out there that excites me, but I expect Paxson to get something done that will make them a much better team next season.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

In this draft, while I haven't seen all of them play, I expect the following big men to have better careers than Curry:

Bargnani
Aldridge
Splitter
Davis
Sheldon Williams

It's not like 16/5 or 14/6 with no assists and one block is even All-Star caliber, so it's not like any of those guys have to be the next TD to be an improvement.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

And BTW, I'm still waiting for the links to all the posts where I am "*practically guaranteeing*" what Sweets would do this year.

They should be easy to find, after all they are the ones that I allegedly "*loudly and repeatedly bloviated all over the place*".

Or an apology, I'm flexible. I don't appreciate people spouting bald-faced lies about me, and they should be held accountable.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I don't agree with the "just do something" philosophy. I'd rather wait it out and let things develop before pulling an Isiah and rushing into things too quickly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> And BTW, I'm still waiting for the links to all the posts where I am "*practically guaranteeing*" what Sweets would do this year.
> 
> They should be easy to find, after all they are the ones that I allegedly "*loudly and repeatedly bloviated all over the place*".
> 
> Or an apology, I'm flexible. I don't appreciate people spouting bald-faced lies about me, and they should be held accountable.


I don't feel like playing "Poor Little Bullsville."

Feel free to send one of the angry PMs you're always complaining about.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bullsville said:


> And BTW, I'm still waiting for the links to all the posts where I am "*practically guaranteeing*" what Sweets would do this year.
> 
> They should be easy to find, after all they are the ones that I allegedly "*loudly and repeatedly bloviated all over the place*".
> 
> Or an apology, I'm flexible. I don't appreciate people spouting bald-faced lies about me, and they should be held accountable.


 this has nothing to do with the topic.

next time you make it about yourself the post gets deleted.

time after that, the thread will be locked.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> .
> Before you start talking about being a Bulls fan, why don't you answer some of these questions:
> 
> 1. In the 1991 NBA Finals the Bulls found themselves down 1-0 and in need of a spark. Jordan was having a hard time getting it going and needed to look for his teammates. Who was a major threat in the first quarter of game 2 that took some of the heat off of Jordan?
> ...


I love answering Bulls Trivia! I know these weren't directed at me but I have to answer.

1. That would be Horace Grant with 10 1st quarter points.

2. Kevin Johnson cause Jordan was eating up Dan Majerle on defense and offense.

3. Scott Williams was the player shoved under the basket and Buck Williams made the comment for the Blazers.

4. Well, he was clotheslined by John Starks in Game 6, almost got into a fight with Xavier McDaniel in Game 7, that's when Jordan went nose to nose.

5. Pippen finished 3rd that year. The starting lineup was BJ Armstrong, Pete Myers, Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen and Bill Cartwright (when he was healthy).


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm not insisting Pax should revamp the entire line-up. I just want him to be a little pro-active when it comes to getting a good big man. I know there aren't any great big men out there right now on the market, but I'm sure someone can do a better job than Sweetney. Seriously, he is 6'8", which is an inch shorter than Deng, and he is horribly unathletic. He can't dominate the post because he lacks the quickness and athleticism guys like Curry have. Curry could power in the ball anytime he saw an opening. It was entertaining. And he also can block shots when he gets active.

Sorry to trail off again on Curry. I'm just saying that I'd like to see Pax try to improve this team in small trades or pick-ups. Like everyone else, I love our current roster, except for the frontcourt. Chandler is better served as a bench player, who should come in when we need some defensive spark and need help. I don't have any problems with guys like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, etc. I just wish we had someone in the frontcourt to feed the ball to, in order to get more production from the ENTIRE team. Great teams will get everyone touches, and everyone scores effectively and efficiently. Our only efficient player right now is Gordon, who is becoming better everyday. I only wish Deng would improve his scoring average, and that other guys could contribute. I don't think our bigs can get the job done, which is why I think Pax should at least shop some of them around the league in order to get some value back. THAT'S why I started this thread. I want Pax to be a leader, not a follower.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=204594&page=9&pp=15

Here's a link to November 16, 2005- about 5 weeks after the deal went through, you should be able to find a lot of stuff that I "*practically guaranteed*" in the pages right around that date fairly easily. My opinions were "*loudly and repeatedly bloviated all over the place*", so there shouldn't be a problem.

But here's what one ScottMay had to say about Sweets:



> The Bulls need to figure out a way to get "Sweets" more playing time.
> 
> After watching the game against Portland tonight, the answer's obvious (but not new -- many of you have been championing this idea since "Sweets" was traded here): make him our starting center.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

So it's OK for someone to post something about me that is blatantly untrue, yet that untruth has something to do with the thread?

And then I'm not allowed to defend myself against the said untruth?

What the hell is going on here?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> this has nothing to do with the topic.
> 
> next time you make it about yourself the post gets deleted.
> 
> time after that, the thread will be locked.


NO, ScottMay made it about me when he claimed that I said something that I never said.

Why does that keep getting ignored? If I had said something, that's different, but I never said it.

Unreal.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm going to agree with Bullsville here... I looked back, very closely, and I can't find anywhere he guaranteed Sweetney would replace Curry.

If you're going to make a claim about another guy, and then use it to undercut anything they're saying on a current (separate) topic, then 
1) Yeah, that is getting personal. Maybe it's not expressly forbidden by the letter of the rules here, but it's sort of one-upmanship when the point could be made just as easily without trying to make a fool out of the other guy.

2) If you're going to do it, you better get your facts right. I can't see where the facts are right here. The best I found was Bullsville saying Sweets and Songaila together would far eclipse Curry's production and make us forget him... which isn't really the same as saying it'd just be Sweets (it's also pretty meaningless unless we get a special dispensation from the league to allow us to play Songaila and Sweetney at the same time with six guys on the court). But still, if you're going to make a claim about what someone said... pull up a quote. If you can't, you shouldn't be saying it.

Anyway, the specifics of things here really don't do a whole lot to change the underlying dynamic, which is you all doing most everything possible to antagonize the **** out of each other. That wouldn't be as annoying as it is if you didn't do it in most every thread you all posted in by sarcastically parroting back oversimplified and nonsensical charicatures of each others' positions. It's not going to convince anyone, I'm sure, no matter how many times you write it. It does, however, bore the **** out of me the more I read it. Can we move on to something new?

And no- it doesn't matter who first "started it" in this case, because its pretty clear everyone's had a turn or two. Someone... please, for the love of god, figure out something better to talk about.


----------

