# KC on Wallace



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> What annoyed Wallace, a source close to the player said, is that he wasn't informed of the no-headband rule until after he signed his four-year, $60 million free-agent deal.


link

All this and more by KC Johnson


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

All of those rules come off as stupid to me, but it has to be put on Big Ben, he took it a step furthur putting it public with the headband statement. Also a nice damn you to the Chicago media, hadn't heard anything before this about clashes that early and info about the pregame music and such, just sugarcoating things with images of Skiles laughing with him or high fives


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> According to league and Bulls sources, Wallace has felt unfairly singled out by team rules that have taken away his pregame music, his headband and his tape-free ankles.


That's quite harsh, we took his ankles!


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

This is sports for crying out loud, players have many rituals and superstitions. If player wants to wear women's underware during games because he thinks it helps his game you let him do so, it's that simple. Just let Big Ben wear those headbands Bulls have nothing to loose.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Samael said:


> This is sports for crying out loud, players have many rituals and superstitions. If player wants to wear women's underware during games because he thinks it helps his game you let him do so, it's that simple. Just let Big Ben wear those headbands Bulls have nothing to loose.


I don't think that this would be a good idea. They can't let Wallace wear his headband just because he check out what happened if he wear one.
If they cancel this headband rule because of Wallace, what will the next thing Wallace want to change?

Managers of big companies also aren't allowed to wear weird clothes when they represent the company. So Wallace can wear his headband privately but not while playing baskeball.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

60 million dollars and he complains about not being able to wear a headband. Unbelievable.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

garnett said:


> 60 million dollars and he complains about not being able to wear a headband. Unbelievable.


Pretty much my feelings on this whole bizarre episode.

Strange, it's only the Tribune this morning that's gone full force with the issue. Everyone else seems to have been over come by the Bears' loss.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:cowboy:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

garnett said:


> 60 million dollars and he complains about not being able to wear a headband. Unbelievable.


It is unbelievable that PaxSkiles didn't make the headband policy known to Wallace before signing him. With all due respect to the company line being floated by K.C. Johnson, while he was a Piston, it was far outside Ben Wallace's bailiwick to be aware of Scott Skiles's policy on headbands.

It is unbelievable that the Bulls would center a marketing campaign for the most important free agent acquisition in franchise history around that free agent's hair and headband, then prohibit the player from wearing said headband.

It is unbelievable that the Bulls are more concerned about maintaining the headband ban than they are winning basketball games. And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what they're doing here: it's a piece of cloth, not a totem representing insurrection and disobedience. Now the Bulls have painted themselves into a corner where the only escape routes require either humiliating the coach (reverse headband ban), continuing to alienate their best player (maintain ban), firing their coach, or trading their best player from a position of weakness (fire sale on Ben Wallace in Aisle 10!). 

It is unbelievable that the Bulls have made such a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It is unbelievable that the Bulls are more concerned about maintaining the headband ban than they are winning basketball games.


This really is the bottom line from my perspective.

Are PaxSkiles more interested in running an organization where the goal is to win the NBA Championship or is their goal to do things "the right way?" 

It seems to me the *emphasis* is on the latter.

If star players like Ben Wallace can't exist on the Bulls under PaxSkiles, we're in real trouble.

If you are going to sign Ben Wallace, whose identity is a fro, some armbands and a headband you have to at least tell him about the no headband policy so Wallace can make an informed decision and so the Bulls don’t blow 60 million dollars on a guy who won’t be happy here. 

To think that the 3 year Cap Space plan resulted in this…. Well…. Its just incompetence on the organizations part.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

from the *sam smith* article (those threads could probably be merged, but hey that not my job!)



_He slapped the face of the organization that has been the best to him in his career, one that has recognized his value and taken care of his family and their families for generations to come._













but get those tickets/jerseys/programs/bobbleheads/drinkcups/etc...while you can!!!


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Headband is a common thing in sports...it should be allowed. Loud music is also a common thing in today's society...it should be allowed. Taping ankles or not is a common thing in sports...it should be allowed. Overall, the Bulls need to concentrate on winning instead of arguing what to wear, what to listen, and whether to tape or now. END OF THE STORY.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It is unbelievable that the Bulls are more concerned about maintaining the headband ban than they are winning basketball games. And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what they're doing here: it's a piece of cloth, not a totem representing insurrection and disobedience. Now the Bulls have painted themselves into a corner where the only escape routes require either humiliating the coach (reverse headband ban), continuing to alienate their best player (maintain ban), firing their coach, or trading their best player from a position of weakness (fire sale on Ben Wallace in Aisle 10!).
> 
> It is unbelievable that the Bulls have made such a mountain out of a molehill.


Co-sign.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> It is unbelievable that PaxSkiles didn't make the headband policy known to Wallace before signing him. With all due respect to the company line being floated by K.C. Johnson, while he was a Piston, it was far outside Ben Wallace's bailiwick to be aware of Scott Skiles's policy on headbands.
> 
> It is unbelievable that the Bulls would center a marketing campaign for the most important free agent acquisition in franchise history around that free agent's hair and headband, then prohibit the player from wearing said headband.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing they weren't counting on Big Ben to be such a big baby and make such an issue about it. Every other player has to follow these rules and I don't see why Wallace should be the exception. And this isn't the only thing. Poor Ben doesn't like taping his ankles. I guess they didn't tell him about that either. 

I know everybody likes to blame the Bulls for anything and everything, but this time it's not their fault.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Fox Sports on Big Ben and his slow start: Don't Panic

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6191428




It was considered a bold move. 

Let's translate the sports definition of bold move: this one could get ugly. 

The makeover-inspiring numbers include per-game averages for scoring (7.3), rebounding (11.3) and blocks (2.2), combined with a wicked free-throw percentage (41.6). That was the statistical salvo from last season. 

As a free-agent reward for these less-than-Springfield stats, the Chicago Bulls lobbed a four-year contract worth $60 million. Ben Wallace, eyeballing the loot like he would eyeball a long rebound, snagged it and walked away from Detroit. 

According to NBA sharpies, the acquisition of the 6-foot-9 Wallace was going to be just enough to lift the Bulls into an Eastern Conference heavyweight role. 

Through 10 games, Chicago is behind on points. 

While dragging a 3-7 record into the homestretch of a killer road trip, the Bulls have noticed that Wallace — the league's Defensive Player of the Year last season — is providing just 5.5 points and 9.7 rebounds per game. If the rebounding slip continues, Big Ben would achieve his lowest carom-collecting output in seven years. 

With about one-eighth of this season behind us, several NBA observers are unofficially prepared to question the Bulls's strategy in signing Wallace. Four league insiders — working as advance scouts or assistant coaches and contacted on behalf of the early Wallace review — have embraced the Bulls-were-nuts premise. 

I do not. 

Please note that I wasn't wild about the move when it occurred. 

With diminishing numbers on Wallace's resume, a four-year, $60 million deal represented riskier business than Chicago had witnessed since the pre-cuckoo days of Tom Cruise. 




But I understood the logic. A young team on the cusp of contender status might benefit greatly from the addition of a defensive colossus who doesn't need the ball to be happy. 

The big contract and injury-riddled history of rebounding-rejecting ace Tyson Chandler (traded to New Orleans-Oklahoma City) would be replaced by a robust leader with a championship pedigree. 

But I also recognized the potential trouble in making this deal. 

Chicago was sinking almost all of its considerable cap room into another inside player who can't score. Any scouting report worth reading will indicate that while the Bulls have some legitimate snipers, they still lack someone capable of going to the post and drawing a double team. 

An example of this balance issue surfaced Sunday in Los Angeles, where Bulls guards Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon and Chris Duhon teamed up to miss 17 of 21 field-goal attempts. Chicago held the Lakers to 82 points, but their own 34-percent shooting secured a 10-point loss. 

Despite Wallace's inability to make things easier on offense, I expect the Bulls to rally in the win-loss column. Even though Chicago coach Scott Skiles is chafing over an increase of dribble penetration allowed (he thinks his players are relying on Ben to erase their mistakes), the Bulls will tighten up. 

Chicago led the league in lowest field-goal percentage allowed over the past two seasons; adding Wallace won't exactly wreck that. 

Considerable roster turnover also has made the defensive rotations and ball movement on offense less crisp than last season. That will change with familiarity provided by time. 

Here's a little perspective: At present, the Eastern Conference was offering only two teams with records above .500. 

Wallace is in Chicago to provide big defensive plays and offensive rebounds at crucial moments. And he's here to make these contributions now. While Big Ben's always in great shape and probably will be in four years, the return on Chicago's investment should decrease as the seasons roll past. 

But he'll boost the Bulls' chances to win big right away. The offense won't be there, but last summer's free-agent market wasn't swimming in big guys who could score on the block. 

Wallace recently said he and his teammates won't panic. 

I'd like to prematurely panic, but I'll save my panic for this week's Trend Setters feature.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...EB345F66D014C7F1862572330017A678?OpenDocument

SILLY DISPUTE OF WEEK The Chicago Bulls have a team policy against wearing headbands. So in apparent protest of his limited playing time Friday night, Ben Wallace donned a headband Saturday.

Coach Scott Skiles yanked him from the game. When Wallace tried to wear the headband again to start the second half, Skiles benched him. Wallace eventually took the thing off and went back into the game.

Neither player or coach had much to say about the matter, but Bulls guard Kirk Hinrich told the Chicago Tribune that the team needed to resolve the matter. 

"We want to make sure everybody is on the same page," Hinrich said. "Hopefully we will be. Ben wants to win just as much as anybody on the team. He has a track record. He has won a lot of games in this league. He has a championship. We're glad to have him. It's just something we need to work out."


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It's a matter of principle, right? Didn't we not want Darius Miles because of his cornrows?

If they make the shorts shorter, we should all write letters to Paxson letting him know that no matter how hard you try, you can't travel backwards in time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

More from KC:


http://www.columbusdispatch.com/cavs/cavs.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/27/20061127-C11-01.html

NEW YORK — Red is a bold color, which made Ben Wallace’s decision all the more glaring. Blatantly defying coach Scott Skiles’ team rule prohibiting headbands, Wallace broke one out to match the Chicago Bulls’ road uniforms Saturday night in Madison Square Garden. 

A much-needed 106-95 victory over the Knicks that snapped the Bulls’ six-game losing streak now will serve only as a partial tonic for a much more flammable situation. Thirteen games into a four-year contract that will pay Wallace $60 million, he and Skiles are at odds. 

One night after Wallace played a season-low 19 minutes, 38 seconds, Skiles removed Wallace just 2:02 after tipoff for breaking the team rule. 

Is Skiles worried that Wallace’s insubordination will become an issue? 

"No," he said after the game. "I don’t know why. I’m just not." 

Skiles wouldn’t comment on why his rule is in effect. Wallace wouldn’t comment on whether he agreed with it. 

"I don’t care about that," Wallace said. "All I know is we got the win." 

Asked if he understood why he was benched, Wallace looked downward. 

"Ask (Skiles)," he said. "Coach makes the decisions. I just play." 

After Wallace was removed, assistant coach Ron Adams went to talk to him. Fellow assistant Pete Myers, Wallace’s closest confidant, subsequently followed suit. Finally, assistant Jim Boylan, Skiles’ right-hand man, visited him. And still the headband remained. 

When Wallace finally removed it, during a dead-ball situation with 2:41 left in the first quarter, Skiles called for him to re-enter. He did so with 1:45 left in the first quarter and played 14:36 in the first half, grabbing four rebounds. 

But the turmoil didn’t end there. Wallace slipped the headband back on just before the third quarter was set to start. Skiles immediately sent Malik Allen to the scorer’s table before play began. 

When Wallace again removed the headband during a timeout with 5:46 left in the quarter, he re-entered just 81 seconds later. 

By that point, Boylan had taken over as coach after official Tim Donaghy ejected Skiles with two quick technical fouls 56 seconds into the second half. 

After the game, the Bulls had a team meeting for 25 minutes. 

Given that the incident came one night after Skiles benched Wallace for the final 17:44 of a game, questions about Wallace’s happiness are legitimate. 

"Communication is the key," forward P.J. Brown said. "And we still have communication. But rules are rules. You have to abide by them."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> It is unbelievable that PaxSkiles didn't make the headband policy known to Wallace before signing him. With all due respect to the company line being floated by K.C. Johnson, while he was a Piston, it was far outside Ben Wallace's bailiwick to be aware of Scott Skiles's policy on headbands.
> 
> It is unbelievable that the Bulls would center a marketing campaign for the most important free agent acquisition in franchise history around that free agent's hair and headband, then prohibit the player from wearing said headband.
> 
> ...


Amen. It just seems silly to get into a battle of wills this early over something so trivial. If the Bulls didn't tell him of the rule when he signed the contract, especially when it seems he inquired if there were any rules he should know about, and the Bulls used him in full headband/armband regalia in its marketing materials, then it appears to me that they tacitly approved BW wearing this gear. 

It doesn't make any sense to alienate your 60 million dollar man over this, especially at this early juncture of the season. What, does Skiles think he's going to "break" Wallace and that he'll fall in line? That doesn't seem like his personality. I agree that the team is more important than the individual. However, I don't think that means that you treat every player exactly the same. I think as Phil Jackson showed, in order to benefit the team, which means to get the most out of every player, you've got to approach each player differently. How would Dennis Rodman have fared under a system like this? Not terribly well, I'd imagine. 

When the issue is playing hard, being on time, attending practice, etc., then I understand having a more hard-line stance. But this headband business? Give me a freaking break. I think that Ben definitely went about protesting the rule in the wrong way. It was immature. But, you've got to figure out a way to get production out of this guy, and keeping with the rigid (and highly arbitrary) rules doesn't seem like the way to do it. 

How about this? Do what you did before you signed the guy. Sit down with him. Listen to him. Explain whatever rationale exists for the rule. Ask him his opinion on it. Have an open mind. At least show Mr. 4-time DPOY a little respect. 

Sheesh.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Who said a headband is a bigger priority for the Bulls than winning? A hater? Maybe.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I agree that the team is more important than the individual. However, I don't think that means that you treat every player exactly the same. I think as Phil Jackson showed, in order to benefit the team, which means to get the most out of every player, you've got to approach each player differently. How would Dennis Rodman have fared under a system like this? Not terribly well, I'd imagine. When the issue is playing hard, being on time, attending practice, etc., then I understand having a more hard-line stance. But this headband business? Give me a freaking break. I think that Ben definitely went about protesting the rule in the wrong way. It was immature. But, you've got to figure out a way to get production out of this guy, and keeping with the rigid (and highly arbitrary) rules doesn't seem like the way to do it. How about this? Do what you did before you signed the guy. Sit down with him. Listen to him. Explain whatever rationale exists for the rule. Ask him his opinion on it. Have an open mind. At least show Mr. 4-time DPOY a little respect. Sheesh.



Well said.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

The rules should be the same for every single player, no matter if they are rookies or 10 year veterans. Its not the Bulls' fault that Ben Wallace nor his agent knew about this rule. Its not the Bulls' fault that Wallace was blinded by money. I dont know which one is "stupidest": if the rule or Ben Wallace's attitude.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The rules should be the same for every player and they should not include any stupid rule about wearing a headband. I mean headbands are a respected ballin accessory and some guys are used to using them to keep sweat and hair out of their face, why shouldn't a player be allowed to use one? Do the Bulls have some over weaning need to dictate the fashion sensibilities of their players? Is everyone on the team not wearing headbands somehow going to make them gel as a team and avoid individual play? I kind of doubt it. Your paying this guy 60million dollars and you want to generate bad faith over a $3 piece of terry cloth? It is RE tarded. And yes, Ben Wallace is paid a lot of money to play basketball but there are 29 other teams that would love to have him and could give a damn less if he wears a headband, so I can definitley understand his attitude about the thing. In fact, if I were him I would probably sit the bench the rest of the season with a headband on.

ACE


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> from the *sam smith* article (those threads could probably be merged, but hey that not my job!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bet Skiles is really embarrased that he created that photoshop image and posted it on Bulls.com.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I bet Skiles is really embarrased that he created that photoshop image and posted it on Bulls.com.





:|










maybe the team can pitch in and buy one of these for.....





















SCOTT SKILES!!!


(ron, _love you_, but i am distinctly on the pro-headband side of this silly little hissy fit)

:bananallama:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what they're doing here: it's a piece of cloth, *not a totem representing insurrection and disobedience.*


Ben Wallace disagrees with you.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Ben Wallace disagrees with you.


This is the same Ben Wallace who before signing his contract flat-out and straight-up asked the Bulls if there was anything he'd need to change if he signed with Chicago, or if there were any special requirements Skiles would ask of him?

Right. In their haste to make use of Cap Space and sign the best free agent in team history, the Bulls neglected to mention a critical issue that probably would have caused Wallace to reconsider leaving Detroit. 

While I agree that Wallace has been less than diplomatic here, and that it is well within the Bulls rights to institute any policy they like, so long as it conforms to the CBA and Uniform Player Contract(s), this particular mess is all on PaxSkiles. They were asked a direct question and they did not answer it honestly. 

Now *that* would be something useful to have a policy about -- being forthright with players and prospective free agent signings.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> "Communication is the key," forward P.J. Brown said. "And we *still* have communication. But rules are rules. You have to abide by them."


I wish I could hear the tone of that word.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> This is the same Ben Wallace who before signing his contract flat-out and straight-up asked the Bulls *if there was anything he'd need to change if he signed with Chicago*, or if there were any special requirements Skiles would ask of him?


I'm sorry Scott. I simply don't accept this based on two things. First, its somewhat of a mischaracterization of the nebulous statement written by Chris McCoskey. Second, Chris McCoskey has been trashing Ben Wallace and the move to Chicago since it happened. I don't accept him as a reliable source of information and reject what he wrote.

I don't believe that Ben Wallace asked: "Will I need to change anything?" 

And if he did ask it, I don't believe that that Skiles and Paxson would have withheld the existence of team rules from him. If anything, I consider them to be honest to a fault. 

And if you think Ben's headband is worth $12 million to him in free agency, I've got a bridge I'd like to show you sometime. 

In short, until I hear more than Chris McCoskey's no-credibility-weblog-further-serves-my-5-month-long-agenda-against-Ben-to-Chicago assertion, I reject this as a either a patent falsehood or a gross mischaracterization (not you, but McCoskey).

I'll recant all of this, but I'll need more than Chris McCoskey's word. I've considered his work as it relates to Ben Wallace to be trash all summer.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm sorry Scott. I simply don't accept this based on two things. First, its somewhat of a mischaracterization of the nebulous statement written by Chris McCoskey. Second, Chris McCoskey has been trashing Ben Wallace and the move to Chicago since it happened. I don't accept him as a reliable source of information and reject what he wrote.
> 
> I don't believe that Ben Wallace asked: "Will I need to change anything?"
> 
> ...


Fine. You certainly aren't going to play Attack the Source with K.C. Johnson, though, are you? He stated today that the headband requirement was not made clear to Wallace until after he signed the deal. 

That's really the key issue to me -- if you're going to have a headband ban in place, and if you are wooing a player who could not be more famously linked to his headband if he tried, then you have to have the courage to mention the ban before the deal is finalized. 

I don't know if Wallace would have foregone $12 million to be able to wear the headband. The phone calls to Detroit, the behind-the-scenes complaining, and his undeniably diminished output between the lines lead me to believe it's not that far-fetched. Something's certainly amiss; the headband's as good an explanation as anything else.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't think its too far fetched to suppose that the negotiators never considered a headband to be a significant part of a $60M contract deal.

Yeah, you can say that Bulls management should have noticed that Ben wears a headband and bring up the issue, but you can also say that if it was such a huge deal to Ben, maybe his handlers should have made that known to the Bulls as well.

Either way, I think the whole thing is silly -- both the enforcement of a wholly unimportant rule and the hissy fit thrown over the enforcement of that rule.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It is unbelievable that PaxSkiles didn't make the headband policy known to Wallace before signing him. With all due respect to the company line being floated by K.C. Johnson, while he was a Piston, it was far outside Ben Wallace's bailiwick to be aware of Scott Skiles's policy on headbands.
> 
> It is unbelievable that the Bulls would center a marketing campaign for the most important free agent acquisition in franchise history around that free agent's hair and headband, then prohibit the player from wearing said headband.
> 
> ...


Is that the defense (mountain out of a molehill) you would use on the job? You're the only guy breaking the rule, but its a silly rule? The whole company should change for ScottMay because he's a really good employee? It's more important ScottMay be able to break the rules so long as he's doing his job well? 

Sorry, just can't sign on to that and it still seems like it's missing the point - that its really not about the headband.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Is that the defense (mountain out of a molehill) you would use on the job? You're the only guy breaking the rule, but its a silly rule? The whole company should change for ScottMay because he's a really good employee? It's more important ScottMay be able to break the rules so long as he's doing his job well?
> 
> Sorry, just can't sign on to that and it still seems like it's missing the point - that its really not about the headband.


There are job rules and there are silly little job rules.



Office Space:
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager (Mike Judge): "We neen to talk about your flair." 
Joanna: "Really? I-I have 15 pieces on. I also--" 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "Well, 15 is the minimum, okay?" 
Joanna: "Oh, okay." 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "Now, you know, it's up to you whether or not you wanna just do the bare minimum or, uh-- Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair on today. And a terrific smile." 
Joanna: "Okay, so you want me to wear more?" 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "Look, Joanna--" 
Joanna: "Yeah?" 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, okay?" 
Joanna: "They come to Chotchkie's for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That's what the flair's about. It's about fun." 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "Yeah. Okay, so more then, yeah?" 
Joanna: "Look, we want you to express yourself. Okay? Now, if you feel that the bare minumum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that. Okay? You do wanna express yourself, don't you?" 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "Y-Yeah." 
Joanna: "Okay, great, great. That's all I ask." 
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "Okay."


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Is that the defense (mountain out of a molehill) you would use on the job? You're the only guy breaking the rule, but its a silly rule? The whole company should change for ScottMay because he's a really good employee? It's more important ScottMay be able to break the rules so long as he's doing his job well?
> 
> Sorry, just can't sign on to that and it still seems like it's missing the point - that its really not about the headband.


Man, the real world must be an awful, fretful, inconceivably complicated and unjust and scary place for some of you.

Yes, if ScottMay is the equivalent of Ben Wallace -- one of the greatest team defenders in NBA history, a champion, etc. -- you make some exceptions for ScottMay. I am fairly certain that organizations of all stripes -- sports teams, governments, corporations, families -- make provisions for exceptional individuals and somehow manage not to crumble into dust.

There is probably not a lot of exception-making at military academies and Russian prisons. I'll grant you that.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I don't think its too far fetched to suppose that the negotiators never considered a headband to be a significant part of a $60M contract deal.
> 
> Yeah, you can say that *Bulls management should have noticed that Ben wears a headband* and bring up the issue, but you can also say that if it was such a huge deal to Ben, maybe his handlers should have made that known to the Bulls as well.
> 
> Either way, I think the whole thing is silly -- both the enforcement of a wholly unimportant rule and the hissy fit thrown over the enforcement of that rule.





dya'think??












:dpepper:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Amen. It just seems silly to get into a battle of wills this early over something so trivial. If the Bulls didn't tell him of the rule when he signed the contract, especially when it seems he inquired if there were any rules he should know about, and the Bulls used him in full headband/armband regalia in its marketing materials, then it appears to me that they tacitly approved BW wearing this gear.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense to alienate your 60 million dollar man over this, especially at this early juncture of the season. What, does Skiles think he's going to "break" Wallace and that he'll fall in line? That doesn't seem like his personality. I agree that the team is more important than the individual. However, I don't think that means that you treat every player exactly the same. I think as Phil Jackson showed, in order to benefit the team, which means to get the most out of every player, you've got to approach each player differently. How would Dennis Rodman have fared under a system like this? Not terribly well, I'd imagine.
> 
> ...


 
Well, Ben ought to have shown his coach and gm a little respect as well, no? Couldn't he have asked for a sit down with Skiles or Skiles and Paxson? Was it really necessary to be insubordinate? 

Is it really about the headband or is it about an excuse for poor play? Is it about a guy who got his $60 million and instead of taking what comes along with it (more rules, etc.) trying to get everything HE wants out of the deal. 

All this talk of the Bulls dotting every I and crossing every T for BW is just a little too funny. If the organization didn't cover something then it should be allowed. All the talk of OJ has me hearing the "if it doesn't fit, you can't commit". If Ben Wallace wasn't explicitly informed of something then it should be allowed. Seems anywhere I've worked you sign off on following whatever was in the corporate handbook. 

Maybe Wallace should have read it before he signed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Fine. You certainly aren't going to play Attack the Source with K.C. Johnson, though, are you? *He stated today that the headband requirement was not made clear to Wallace until after he signed the deal.*


No he didn't. He said that a "close source to Wallace" said that. 

When I hear it ("it" being that Ben asked if he needed to change anything about himself to conform to team policies and was told "no") in such a way that I find credible, I'll take all of this back. Because then I'd agree with you that blame is a little bit more of a two way street than it appears to be right now. 



> I don't know if Wallace would have foregone $12 million to be able to wear the headband. The phone calls to Detroit, the behind-the-scenes complaining, and his undeniably diminished output between the lines lead me to believe it's not that far-fetched. Something's certainly amiss; the headband's as good an explanation as anything else.


I think my explanation is a pretty good one: Big Benedict Wallace is a child who is looking to make excuses for himself and the appearance that he isn't helping this team win games. 

NOTE: I say "appearance" because I don't hold Wallace accountable for the Bulls' start. But I think others are, and Wallace can't handle it like a man. I've had no problem with anything about Wallace - his contract, his play, nothing - until he donned that headband not once, but twice. And now I'm hearing about more childishness in the locker room, and its all that much more disappointing.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> :|
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't Wallace the only one who has been referred to by the media as a Diva in this hissy fit?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> This is the same Ben Wallace who before signing his contract flat-out and straight-up asked the Bulls if there was anything he'd need to change if he signed with Chicago, or if there were any special requirements Skiles would ask of him?
> .


So how do you know Wallace wasn't laughing and joking with them when he said it. You know, like, you're giving me $60 million bucks are you sure there isn't anything else I should know...like who do I have to kill, etc. A joke! Possible? 

If his wardrobe was so important to him and only consisted of headband and armbands, you're telling me the guy is so lacking intellectually that he couldn't have asked about these two items himself? 

Or was it more important to him to get the $60M first and negotiate the rest of his demands after the fact?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Man, the real world must be an awful, fretful, inconceivably complicated and unjust and scary place for some of you.
> 
> Yes, if ScottMay is the equivalent of Ben Wallace -- one of the greatest team defenders in NBA history, a champion, etc. -- you make some exceptions for ScottMay. I am fairly certain that organizations of all stripes -- sports teams, governments, corporations, families -- make provisions for exceptional individuals and somehow manage not to crumble into dust.
> 
> There is probably not a lot of exception-making at military academies and Russian prisons. I'll grant you that.


Four years and 60 million dollars later he has been compensated for being "one of the greatest team defenders in NBA history, a champion, etc." The CBA more than takes care of what the players do and do not have to do. So that is still not good enough? Ben Wallace is still not being treated justly here?

Ok.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> Isn't Wallace the only one who has been referred to by the media as a Diva in this hissy fit?





quite true *T*, quite true (very nice to see you, btw).

_i am_ calling skiles a "diva" in this instance. napoleon complex. TDS. angry little man. too-tight-thong-wearer. whatever. he's a good coach, don't get me wrong. he's just fighting the wrong battle here, IMO. 

and i - _as most know by now, so i will cease posting the myriad of images_ - *LOVE, LOVE, LOVE* the fact that the marketing types at Bulls HQ hitched their wagon to a headband all summer long. it cracks me up.

the very first promotional giveaway at the UC opening night (v. kings) was a ben wallace faux'fro and headband thingy.

_hilarious._


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> Well, Ben ought to have shown his coach and gm a little respect as well, no? Couldn't he have asked for a sit down with Skiles or Skiles and Paxson? Was it really necessary to be insubordinate?


I agree, and my post said that Wallace's behavior in this regard is poor. This is one of those situations when I think both sides are acting like children.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> and i - _as most know by now, so i will cease posting the myriad of images_ - *LOVE, LOVE, LOVE* the fact that the marketing types at Bulls HQ hitched their wagon to a headband all summer long. it cracks me up.
> 
> the very first promotional giveaway at the UC opening night (v. kings) was a ben wallace faux'fro and headband thingy.
> 
> _hilarious._


Hilarious? Yes. Ironic? Yes.

But not relevant to what is happening right now between Wallace, Skiles and the team.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> _hilarious._


And tragic at the same time, very Shakespearesque.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> quite true *T*, quite true (very nice to see you, btw).
> 
> _i am_ calling skiles a "diva" in this instance. napoleon complex. TDS. angry little man. too-tight-thong-wearer. whatever. he's a good coach, don't get me wrong. he's just fighting the wrong battle here, IMO.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the other side. I just don't believe this is the way to get rules changes implemented.

If it was going to be this big of a deal to Wallace I question why he didn't get it worked out in training camp or at least by the pre-season. Maybe it would have been amenable to all parties to revise the rules. Ben could have pointed out that you're using me in the marketing with the headband, so why not? Maybe he could have painted the Bulls into a corner and given Paxson and Skiles an out in front of the team. We all know how important it is to give the folks you're negotiating with a way to save face. If he can't change their minds, he goes into the season knowing "it is what it is" since all players are fond of this quote now. 

I just think he comes off looking like a selfish, immature child going about it the way he has and I have trouble defending his position.

And I'm still not clear on Skiles ownership of the rule in the first place. Has anyone actually confirmed this? Didn't he seem to downplay its origin in the Trib articles? Didn't the Trib suggest it could be coming from Reinsdorf? I don't see Skiles or Paxson hanging their owner out to dry on the issue. I see both of them as stand up guys.

Nice to be here, I understand you took a break?  I like to check in when the Bulls sky is falling to see what the eggsperts are saying!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> But not relevant to what is happening right now between Wallace, Skiles and the team.



IMHO, it's extremely relevant to what's happening. it's about sowing the seeds of discontent. battles of the wills. wallace v. skiles. gordon v. skiles (we'd be NAIVE to think that's "solved"). a blatant and yes, _disrespectful_ tuning out of the coaches on wallaces part. who's next? it's about lost confidence on the defensive end (per core team member nocioni). _maddening_ inconsistency. slow starts. blown leads. "blaming" it on all the new players and faulting the guys who've been bulls longer than 5 months for the terrible start (skiles!!). 

*they have no mojo.* 

i just want the team to win. 

and if ben wallace _needs_ the headband to let his fierceness reign, then ****ing let him wear it. 

simple.

_oh and T, maybe ben wallace saw all the fancy bulls.com imagery all summer long featuring him with the fro/headband and figured, hey, they're digging it. 

guess not._ 



_GONG!_


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> _oh and T, maybe ben wallace saw all the fancy bulls.com imagery all summer long featuring him with the fro/headband and figured, hey, they're digging it. _
> 
> _guess not._


And it took him this long to figure that out? Not exactly inspiring. :biggrin:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Ok, you know what? It would be cool if the entire team showed up in a unified rebellion, every single one of them wearing headbands. 

To be honest, I don't know who would really look good sporting it other than Big Ben. Maybe Nocioni, but not Gordon or Duhon. Maybe even Hinrich. Tyrus could pull it off. 

But I just think it would be really cool. And then if the whole team started winning games like crazy, that'd be hot too.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Amen. It just seems silly to get into a battle of wills this early over something so trivial. If the Bulls didn't tell him of the rule when he signed the contract, <b>especially when it seems he inquired if there were any rules he should know about</b>, and the Bulls used him in full headband/armband regalia in its marketing materials, then it appears to me that they tacitly approved BW wearing this gear.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense to alienate your 60 million dollar man over this, especially at this early juncture of the season. What, does Skiles think he's going to "break" Wallace and that he'll fall in line? That doesn't seem like his personality. I agree that the team is more important than the individual. However, I don't think that means that you treat every player exactly the same. I think as Phil Jackson showed, in order to benefit the team, which means to get the most out of every player, you've got to approach each player differently. How would Dennis Rodman have fared under a system like this? Not terribly well, I'd imagine.
> 
> ...


How do you know this?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Showtyme said:


> Ok, you know what? It would be cool if the entire team showed up in a unified rebellion, every single one of them wearing headbands.


That sounds like the worst possible thing that could happen and would prompt me to author a "season is a wash" thread.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I don't think either side didn't even think about headband issue during the negotiation. It's such a trivial matter. 

But on hypothetical note, IF Paxon gave him $60M offer and Wallace then asked them about headband thing, does anyone think that Ben then went "OH, screw the $60M, I am not signing with Bulls. I want my headband."

To me, this whole thing is Wallace being Wallace. Big Baby pouting over his toy. I am very disappointed with him, more so about his character than poor performance so far on the floor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I don't think either side didn't even think about headband issue during the negotiation. It's such a trivial matter.



Its not a trivial matter to Ben Wallace though.

These NBA Stars, which Ben Wallace is, are used to getting their way. And athletes are notoriously quirky. It would not surprise me at all that if PaxSkiles told Ben Wallace during contract negotiations that he would not be able to wear his headband he would have explored other options.

Its like signing Dennis Rodman to a 3 year deal and then telling him, oh yah, I forgot, we have this no colored hair policy. Its trivial though, so it should not cause a problem. What's the big deal? Dime a dozen CPAs and assistant managers at WalMart are not allowed to have colored hair either!!! Sheesh! What a premadonna.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not a trivial matter to Ben Wallace though.
> 
> These NBA Stars, which Ben Wallace is, are used to getting their way. And athletes are notoriously quirky. <b>It would not surprise me at all that if PaxSkiles told Ben Wallace during contract negotiations that he would not be able to wear his headband he would have explored other options.</b>
> 
> Its like signing Dennis Rodman to a 3 year deal and then telling him, oh yah, I forgot, we have this no colored hair policy. Its trivial though, so it should not cause a problem. What's the big deal? Dime a dozen CPAs and assistant managers at WalMart are not allowed to have colored hair either!!! Sheesh! What a premadonna.


$12M says that Wallace more than likely still accepted Bulls offer fully knowing he can't wear headband any more. 

Of course, it's only guess just like yours.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> Ok, you know what? It would be cool if the entire team showed up in a unified rebellion, every single one of them wearing headbands.
> 
> To be honest, I don't know who would really look good sporting it other than Big Ben. Maybe Nocioni, but not Gordon or Duhon. Maybe even Hinrich. Tyrus could pull it off.
> 
> But I just think it would be really cool. And then if the whole team started winning games like crazy, that'd be hot too.


Problem is I don't think any of the players have Ben's back on this one. I think there's a much better chance the team will get a boost from Wallace apologizing, getting with the programing, and bonding with his teammates.


----------



## blackshadow (Nov 25, 2006)

Didn't Paxson see Rodman play for the Bulls? I wonder what policy Paxson and Skiles have on multi-colored hair, nose-rings, lip-rings, ear-rings, etc? Rodman helped the Bulls win and that is what it is all about for we fans. No wonder they got rid of J.R.Smith...he wears a headband; forget about his 17 points a game.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That sounds like the worst possible thing that could happen and would prompt me to author a "season is a wash" thread.


At least they'd be doing something together, for once.

If Skiles got fired, how much worse could it really get?

I'm a Skiles fan and I think we'll turn this thing around, but that's a purely subjective opinion. Objectively speaking, the team getting on the same page about at least ONE thing, the most expensive (and possibly the highest-impact) player feeling supported and part of the unit, and a 4-9 coach losing his job can't be the worst possible thing that could happen.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

blackshadow said:


> I wonder what policy Paxson and Skiles have on multi-colored hair, nose-rings, lip-rings, ear-rings, etc?


that stuff isn't against team rules


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I don't think its too far fetched to suppose that the negotiators never considered a headband to be a significant part of a $60M contract deal.
> 
> Yeah, you can say that Bulls management should have noticed that Ben wears a headband and bring up the issue, but you can also say that if it was such a huge deal to Ben, maybe his handlers should have made that known to the Bulls as well.
> 
> Either way, I think the whole thing is silly -- both the enforcement of a wholly unimportant rule and the hissy fit thrown over the enforcement of that rule.


I think this is a reasonable way to look at it. However, the headband is a well-known trademark of the player. The rule against headbands is known to the Bulls but not to Wallace; it should have raised all kinds of red flags on their end. The chance you have a Terrell Owens kind of situation with an unhappy superstar is a pretty big downside. The chance you have the guy playing without much heart is another pretty big downside.

I don't know what kind of access Wallace's people had to do due diligence on the deal, but there's surely some blame on their part for not finding this glaring needle in the haystack of paperwork heaped on them.

I guess it's a fair question to ask if any of us knew of the rule before the signing. Probably not. on the other hand, we all knew about the cornrows and tucked in shirts and cell phones in the locker room kinds of rules, so it's not exactly a shocker.

Though it's possible that Al Harrington turned us down because he knew better and wants to wear a headband


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That sounds like the worst possible thing that could happen and would prompt me to author a "season is a wash" thread.


I'm kinda partial to Boerwinkle's old "Franchise is a wash" thread myself.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*updated KC article with more quotes from pax and skiles:*




http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,1,936192.story?page=1&coll=cs-home-headlines





> The Tribune also reported Wallace had difficulty running during the first practice of training camp because he was unaccustomed to having his ankles taped, a Bulls team rule. *Paxson and Skiles responded Monday by saying Wallace and Adrian Griffin haven't had to have their ankles taped since that day because they expressed their dissatisfaction privately.*
> 
> Paxson wishes Wallace had done the same with the headband issue.
> 
> ...





i'm sorry, but i think pax and skiles are lying. i really do. (don't flame, this is my opinion)

he said "no problem"? oh, ok. right. "if it was an issue two or three months ago"? um, ok...so

... again, i MUST ASK why virtually every promotion featuring ben wallace since the signing featured him and the headband/fro. honestly i want to know. why did they even bother handing out free faux'fros for the first home game??


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> *updated KC article with more quotes from pax and skiles:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think Paxon and Skile are lying. Not at all. And I could believe Wallace responding with "no problem" at the press conference to Skile as a fact(whether Wallace really didn't have problem with no headband rule right then and there is another matter).

If any one is lying, in retrospect Wallace lied back then when he said "no problem" since he clearly has a problem with it NOW.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

John Paxson said:


> We have the rule for the right reasons.


The right reasons, huh?

How does that rule help you win the NBA Championship Paxson?

The loser GM (lifetime --- regular season and playoffs) lectuing the multi-time all-star, DPOY, NBA Champion on "the right way." LOL. That's rich. Jib it up.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Everyone was quick to blame Skiles but it turns out it wasn't even his rule. 

Just wondering if anyone who was putting all this at Skiles feet (he's little Hitler, fire him, etc.) is willing to take it back? Is it his fault for enforcing the team rules the GM has created?

Also seems I was right to suggest Wallace could have gotten the Bulls to change it before the season. All he had to do was be a man about it and he probably could have gotten it done. Now he's backed Paxson into a corner. Personally, I think Pax could still have a team meeting and chuck the rule, but look what Wallace just cost himself. The respect of many a fan, probably more than a few teammates and even some in the media. For what? 

Again, it's not about the headband. The guy isn't burning up the lines to Detroit over a damn headband. Truth be told the guy wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted Detroit to offer him the $60M. Yeah, he hated Flip, but he hates all his coaches! He wanted to continue being what he was in Detroit. Thats pretty obvious. 

Me, I wanted us to keep Chandler. :yay: 




> The Tribune also reported Wallace had difficulty running during the first practice of training camp because he was unaccustomed to having his ankles taped, a Bulls team rule. Paxson and Skiles responded Monday by saying Wallace and Adrian Griffin haven't had to have their ankles taped since that day because they expressed their dissatisfaction privately.
> 
> Paxson wishes Wallace had done the same with the headband issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

^ This article disproves at least half the **** said about PaxSkiles in these Wallace threads. Why do people make stuff up to hate on these guys? Do you gain some sort of satisfaction thinking your team is mismanaged, I really don't get it.

Very encouraging article though. 



> "I was losing my hair so quickly, maybe I should've worn a headband," he said, smiling.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The right reasons, huh?
> 
> How does that rule help you win the NBA Championship Paxson?
> 
> The loser GM (lifetime --- regular season and playoffs) lectuing the multi-time all-star, DPOY, NBA Champion on "the right way." LOL. That's rich. Jib it up.


In a perfect world a few post season awards would make you coach and GM of your team, right? 

Go ahead call it another "straw man" argument but your comments are completely outlandish. You make these wild statements and then critisize me when I respond to them by saying that they don't resemble this situation. Well you're right. Wallace possibly deserving to have a minor rule changed around for him doesn't make him all powerful. However, your comment above more or less states that despite the fact that Paxson has put together some of the most envied talent in the league he has to submit to every demand from the player he just decided to pay $60 million just because the guy has had some previous success in his career and is important to the team's success. That's insane.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> i'm sorry, but i think pax and skiles are lying. i really do. (don't flame, this is my opinion)
> 
> he said "no problem"? oh, ok. right. "if it was an issue two or three months ago"? um, ok...so


I don't entirely follow your reasoning but seeing as how no one close to the situation has so much as hinted that Ben at any point expressed his displeasure with the rule, I'm going to mark this down as instance #3 that in three days that I've seen a poster invoke the presumption that Skiles/Pax acted in more or less the most horrific, malicious manner possible in a certain situation without any factual support whatsoever.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Wallace possibly deserving to have a minor rule changed around for him doesn't make him all powerful.


I don't give a **** about the rule, other than it appears to be a detriment to the Bulls winning the NBA Championship.

John Paxson should be maximizing his chances to win a NBA Championship. I think some type of solution like the one ScottMay mentioned in the SOLUTIONS THREAD he started is what's in order. The fans, season ticket holders and investors all deserve it. I could give a crap about these OWGs and their powerplays. Take that game to the NCAA if that's what you are interested in. I want a NBA winner.

These Jalen Rose, EROB, Jamal countermeasure rules he instituted when he took over are now really biting the team in the ***. 

This stuff should have been discussed ahead of time before signing Wallace. It should have been clear to both parties. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. 

Sigh. What a mismanaged cluster-****. 



> However, your comment above more or less states that despite the fact that Paxson has put together some of the most envied talent in the league he has to submit to every demand from the player he just decided to pay $60 million just because the guy has had some previous success in his career and is important to the team's success. That's insane.


To be honest with you, I respect Paxson and Skiles for sticking to their ideologically flawed guns. At least they are not hypocrites in this case. It takes some stones to stand up to one of the better players in the game who has accomplished more than either one of them ever has and is owed 60 million dollars over the next 4 years and was the key acquisition behind making the Bulls a supposed “contender.” This petty crap just does not get you any closer to winning the NBA Championship. As a matter of fact, it gets your farther away. 

Its too late for PaxSkiles to let Wallace wear the headband without losing face. Its a bad situation. A lot of money being spent on Ben Wallace. One would think the owners of the team (and the fans) would want a proper ROI. 

In the end, we just have to hope Wallace is a man enough to just play his *** off without the headband. Knowing his childish, coach-killing past though, emboldened with a fresh pile of guaranteed F.U. money, its a dangerous game of chicken to be playing. Foolish of Paxson for putting himself in a situation to have to play it as well.


What would have been wrong with this solution?
To start the season this year, get rid of the headband rule. Have a big photo op during Big Ben’s 1st practice with the team with him in the middle with the FRO, HEADBAND and ARMBANDS and all the other members of the team have headbands and fake fros on as well. The “element” that Paxson spent many years purging is supposedly gone (although, he may now have it again, as the end result of the Purge. LOL.) and would not be corrupted with headbands as a potential playing accessory. 

To not see this as a potential issue with bringing Big Ben on the team is just stupid. Shame on Paxson.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> John Paxson should be maximizing his chances to win a NBA Championship.


Do you really have so little respect for Paxson's basic intelligence that you think he stand by a rule he thought would decrease his chance of doing his job well? What have you seen in his personality that suggests he'd be willing to consciously sabotage himself?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Do you really have so little respect for Paxson's basic intelligence that you think he stand by a rule he thought would decrease his chance of doing his job well?
> What have you seen in his personality that suggests he'd be willing to consciously sabotage himself?



Do you think lifting the no headband rule, with the current roster, would have been an issue?

It should have been abolished to start the season, given the signing of Big Ben Wallace. A very simple solution.

The no headband rule served its purpose. PaxSkiles wanted to perform The Great Purge and immediately exert authority over the troops when they took over. Two months after Paxson guaranteed playoffs of course. The "malcontents" are gone and the rookies have been indoctrinated. Many of the "malcontents" are helping playoff teams win basketball games now. Good for Paxson. Let the remaining jib players and Wallace have some shore leave and wear a freaking headband if they want to, especially if you know its vitally important to your highly paid XO.

I think Paxson would contend that he's done his job well to this point, even though he has a career losing record in the regular season and playoffs and this year's so-called "contending" team isn't looking anything like a real contender.

Ya see, he's doing things "the right way."


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It should have been abolished to start the season, given the signing of Big Ben Wallace. A very simple solution.


Agreed. I wonder if this was not done as a matter of principle or just oversight. Either way, not good. However, if it were really such a big deal to Wallace, you'd think he might have mentioned something about it earlier. 



kukoc4ever said:


> Let the remaining jib players and Wallace have some shore leave and wear a freaking headband if they want to, especially if you know its vitally important to your highly paid XO.


You don't think it is reasonable to be worried that a coach who gives in to the subordination of a player will lose the respect of the other players and that that loss of respect might damage a coaches chances to be successful (i.e. get the most wins out of his team)?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> You don't think it is reasonable to be worried that a coach that gives in to the subordination of a player will lose the respect of the other players and that that loss of respect might damage a coaches chances to be successful?



Oh yes, at this point, PaxSkiles are screwed unless Ben Wallace mans up and decides to play hard without the headband. They can't let him wear it.

The line you quoted was still referring to abolishing the rule before the season started.

--------------------


As for why the rule was not abolished to start the season, I hope its oversight, that way its not some irrevocable ideological flaw in PaxSkiles. But, I fear that Paxson feels these little military games are valuable to maintain control of his team and, even worse, I think Skiles actually enjoys busting peoples humps, especially those who are not accustomed to having their humps busted. He’d be a great drill sergeant.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh yes, at this point, PaxSkiles are screwed unless Ben Wallace *mans *up and decides to play hard without the headband. They can't let him wear it.
> .


You have to hope that Wallace will realize the predicament that the team is in and swallow his vanity. 

Regardless of where the blame deserves to be lain originally, Wallace's reputation as a no-nonsense, meat and potatoes winner will continue to take hits the longer he continues to make this trivial issue something it shouldn't be -- important.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Regardless of where the blame deserves to be lain originally, Wallace's reputation as a no-nonsense, meat and potatoes winner will continue to take hits the longer he continues to make this trivial issue something it shouldn't be -- important.


Right. But if he decides to not abide by the Bulls identity-erasing rules, he'll be paid 60 million dollars over the next four years. If he does abide by the rules, he'll be paid 60 million dollars over the next four years.

This should not even be an issue. Mismanagement. This season and 60 million dollars of the Bulls money should not be at risk over this. That falls on Paxson.


Skiles prides himself on winning tests of will. Hey PaxSkiles, lets do what it takes to win a NBA Championship, even if it means realizing you are GMing and coaching in the NBA, not the NCAA. I'd rather be trying to win a NBA championship than winning petty tests of will.

Let's hope Ben Wallace does not mind losing a test of will against PaxSkiles. Lord knows PaxSkiles isn't going to back down.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right. But if he decides to not abide by the Bulls *identity-erasing *rules, he'll be paid 60 million dollars over the next four years.
> 
> This should not even be an issue. Mismanagement. This season and 60 million dollars of the Bulls money should not be at risk over this. That falls on Paxson.


First, your identity-erasing comment makes it sound like the Bulls are running some kind of Terry Gilliam dystopic scheme. LOL.

Second, while some blame surely deserves to be given to Paxson, Wallace really needs to stop being a little baby. Paxson's error may be one of ideological rigidity or oversight; Wallace's error is being a brat and intentionally sabotaging the success of his team through sub-par effort. 

I'm not sure why you insist on shifting the blame entirely to Paxson, especially given the two men's relative places in the orginzational hierarchy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I'm not sure why you insist on shifting the blame entirely to Paxson, especially given the two men's relative places in the orginzational hierarchy.


The fact that the Bulls are in this pickle to being with falls on Paxson. Big Ben is behaving as expected, based on his past.

From this point on, both sides have decisions to make. 

Like I said, I hope that Wallace does not mind losing a battle of pride with PaxSkiles.

Problem is, Wallace is a prideful man as well.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right. But if he decides to not abide by the Bulls identity-erasing rules, he'll be paid 60 million dollars over the next four years. If he does abide by the rules, he'll be paid 60 million dollars over the next four years.
> 
> This should not even be an issue. Mismanagement. This season and 60 million dollars of the Bulls money should not be at risk over this. That falls on Paxson.
> 
> ...


You know, the #1 ranked team in the NCAA (which happens to be the team in my avatar), also has a white, balding man on the bench. He stresses tough defense and relatively conservative offense. He has an undersized frontline. 

The difference is that he's not an idiot and allows our shooting guard (Aron Afflalo, whom I don't think is that great because of his disappearances during big games) to play through his mistakes. Everyone supports each other, and we rarely hear about any of these offcourt issues and coach battles, even when we struggled with 17-win seasons.

We are a team full of swingmen, but were also excited about next year's top big man recruit coming here. We get the most out of our long-armed 6'7 forward from Cameroon. Ironically, our coach's first name is Ben. You can even find pictures of him smiling on the court, and not in a sarcastic wise-guy kind of way.

And yes some players wear headbands, most notably, another 6'8 forward with little offensive ability:










Last March's NCAA championship was really the battle for the ugliest big man. Joakim won.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_well maybe i have joined the "dark side" afterall._

i will reiterate that i think pax and skiles are "lying", or if you'd like, tweaking the truth to save a little face. if pax _really thinks_ that if it'd been dealt with "a few months ago" and all would be fine, he's really not paying attention and he is incredibly naive. was he _obvilious_ to the marketing campaigns? and i think skiles manipulates the "truth" _all the time_ to serve his own dictatorial purposes and never hold himself accountable for _anything_. this is MY OPINION, thanks. 

whatever. 

NBA basketball is a BUSINESS. it's ENTERTAINMENT. and while this sideshow complete with freaks and geeks might be good copy and message board fodder, it is a dangerous slope for the Bull to be riding. you cannot tell me with a straight face that they weren't counting on raking in the dough thru merchandise sales, ticket sales etc using the BRAND IDENTITY of Ben Wallace as we (used to?) know and love. 

that said, i think it's time for EVERYONE to suck it up and play hard, competitive, *angry ****ing basketball*.

i know i'm pissed. i hope the team is too. not just at Ben (if they are so inclined) or at Skiles (i am genuinely worried about his ego continuing to supercede the team) but _AT EACH OTHER_ for not playing the kind of basketball they are capable of. lost confidence on the defensive end? give me a ****ing break.

*i am talking to YOU Ben, Kirk, Noc, Luol, Ben, PJ, Malik, Griff, Thabo, Tyrus, Chris, Viktor, Marty, Andre and Sweets (layoff the donuts!!).*

_get it together. _














kukoc4ever said:


> What would have been wrong with this solution?
> 
> To start the season this year, get rid of the headband rule. *Have a big photo op during Big Ben’s 1st practice with the team with him in the middle with the FRO, HEADBAND and ARMBANDS and all the other members of the team have headbands and fake fros on as well.* The “element” that Paxson spent many years purging is supposedly gone (although, he may now have it again, as the end result of the Purge. LOL.) and would not be corrupted with headbands as a potential playing accessory.
> 
> To not see this as a potential issue with bringing Big Ben on the team is just stupid. Shame on Paxson.




K4E you :rock: i love this idea. too bad they didn't think of it. maybe it's not too late, though. skiles thinks this episode will promote team unity. team? are you listening?

*i say fight the law.*

yup, i've joined the dark side!! where the hell is my pitchfork!!???


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

These are facts (or statements) taken from identified sources:

1) Skiles and Paxson did not inform Ben Wallace about a headband rule during a $60 million contract negotation that exceeded by $12 million, Wallace's next best offer.

2) The rule had been in place since 2003.

3) Chicago is one of several teams who enforce this rule.

4) On the day of the press conference - months before the season began - Skiles informs Ben Wallace of the rule regarding head bands.

5) Wallace says "no problem" - presumably not a lie - and makes no further issue of it.

6) Wallace, amid volumes of articles doubting his "declining abilities", concerns that he won't help the Bulls over the top because he can't score, and that he's overpaid, has an up and down start to the NBA season.

7) Announcer after announcer and writer after writer say he doesn't look the same and isn't playing well. 

8) The Bulls lose 6 in a row.

9) In the 6th game of that losing streak, Wallace fails to show up, gets no points and no rebounds and, undoubtedly embarrassing to him, has his time limited to 20 minutes as a result.

10) Then the very next night after this humiliating performance, Wallace - for the very first time - "expresses" his dissatisfaction with the headband rule by insurrection against the coach on national TV not once, but twice, in the same game. This is over 4 months after being informed of the rule.

11) Paxson says that the issue isn't the dissatisfaction but the method of expressing it, stating that had Wallace raised the issue earlier, the situation would have been easier to resolve and the rule easier to change, but now its a tough spot. 

Conclusion? John Paxson cares more about headbands than Championships, and he's a lying tyrant who evidently moonlights as the web-designer of bulls.com.  Ben Wallace? Well, its a stupid rule. 

Here's what I take, though, and forgive my disagreement: Ben Wallace was told of the rule and simply didn't care - per his own statement. It wasn't until his play was being questioned, his alleged decline being more roundly discussed on a national and local level, his team's inability to win reached a crescendo, and the worst game he's played in 7 years took place, that the "headband" suddenly become such an urgent issue of importance for him that he had to openly defy his coach on national TV to prove his point without ever pursuing less destructive avenues. 

My wife and I got in a HUGE argument one time about the placement of my humidor in our home. The argument had nothing to do with a humidor.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> This stuff should have been discussed ahead of time before signing Wallace. It should have been clear to both parties. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.
> 
> Sigh. What a mismanaged cluster-****.
> 
> To be honest with you, I respect Paxson and Skiles for sticking to their ideologically flawed guns. At least they are not hypocrites in this case. It takes some stones to stand up to one of the better players in the game who has accomplished more than either one of them ever has and is owed 60 million dollars over the next 4 years and was the key acquisition behind making the Bulls a supposed “contender.” This petty crap just does not get you any closer to winning the NBA Championship. As a matter of fact, it gets your farther away.


You're once again espousing the idea that all but the three our four GMs/coaches who were stars in the league have absolutely no control over their players and rosters. It's seriously one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard about sports.

Until you explain how Pax should have known that Wallace apparently felt so deeply about his headband (I think Ron Cey is closest to the truth, Wallace never did care that much) that being unable to wear it would make him brutally unhappy, lead him to revolt against the team, and reconsider taking $12 million more than his next highest offer, we're going to keep going around in circles. Because this is highly unforseeable - it is just a headband after all and other than the fact that the guy wears a fro there's no reason it's more essential to his image than any other player in the NBA who wears one - and without knowing that Ben would throw a fit the only reason to change the rule would be for marketing purposes. Otherwise, you have what you think is a legitimate rule and you think you have a rule abiding player who is easy going and doesn't get bent out of shape about little things like this when he's making $60 million.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> These are facts (or statements) taken from identified sources:
> 
> 1) Skiles and Paxson did not inform Ben Wallace about a headband rule during a $60 million contract negotation that exceeded by $12 million, Wallace's next best offer.
> 
> ...


Regarding #3, what other teams? I would be curious to see.

And Of course everyone who has a $60 million dollar payday coming should always follow all of the rules at all times and never try to test anyone or else they are certainly petulant children... :raised_ey 

Ben Wallace is a warrior, a brick ****house, a 4 time DPOY player and some folks expect him to have the mild manners of an accountant and follow every rule to the letter. I think some of you guys are spending way too much time behind your desks. lol

ACE


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Regarding #3, what other teams? I would be curious to see.
> 
> And Of course everyone who has a $60 million dollar payday coming should always follow all of the rules at all times and never try to test anyone or else they are certainly petulant children... :raised_ey
> 
> ...


I don't think its too much to ask that a player go to the coach or GM with an issue - that he had previously told them wasn't an issue - before instigating a pre-meditated mutiny on national TV. 

I'm glad for you that this type of stuff doesn't bother you. I wish I felt that way about it. Then I wouldn't be drafting up rough notes for a "season is a wash" thread because our star, team-oriented, veteran, free agent, team captain is turning out to be a selfish, destructive piece of crap.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Ace - Pat Riley has a no headband rule, as does Nate McMillan. Those are the only two that come to mind off the top of my head.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think its too much to ask that a player go to the coach or GM with an issue - that he had previously told them wasn't an issue - before instigating a pre-meditated mutiny on national TV.
> 
> I'm glad for you that this type of stuff doesn't bother you. I wish I felt that way about it. Then I wouldn't be drafting up rough notes for a "season is a wash" thread because our star, team-oriented, veteran, free agent, team captain is turning out to be a selfish, destructive piece of crap.



I don't think that is too much to ask either, Ben made an error of judgement in the way he protested, or maybe he just completely forgot. Who knows? In any case I do realize that Wallace IS a star and I don't think the fact that he wants to wear a headband that he has made symbol over the past decade is all that surprising or makes him selfish, destructive, or feces. 

I also think this is getting so far blown out of proportion. Do you really think the "season is a wash" because of headbandgate? At most it is a mild clash of wills, nothing to declare the season over over. I'm more concerend about letting JR Smith go honestly. Or about how so many young players are coming into their own this season and the Bulls suddenly seem to be going from "promising" to "playing out of a hole" again.

Incidentally, you didn't answer my question and I am DYING to find out what other NBA teams have a despotic regime...I mean a headband rule..sorry.

ACE


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Regarding #3, what other teams? I would be curious to see.
> 
> And Of course everyone who has a $60 million dollar payday coming should always follow all of the rules at all times and never try to test anyone or else they are certainly petulant children... :raised_ey
> 
> ...


The Heat (Riley) and the Jazz (Sloan) are two teams that come to mind that don't allow headbands. There may be a couple of others.

This isn't about being a model citizen and following all the rules to the letter. It's about being a teammate and a captain no less. It's about going about problem resolution in an adult manner and not like a petulant little child. If Ben Wallace is this "warrior" and such a man's-man, why didn't he handle this like a man? How hard is it to go to your coach or GM (or even your agent) to work it out? That's what a man does. But, I suppose signing a $60 mil. contract negates that and enables said man to act in whatever manner he feels like and everyone is just supposed to overlook it and cowtow to him. I'm sorry, but that's just plain bull****.

I guess some folks have never been part of a team sport.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

narek said:


> Ace - Pat Riley has a no headband rule, as does Nate McMillan. Those are the only two that come to mind off the top of my head.



Thats a bit of a shock to me. Not so much with hard *** Pat Riley but with Nate..I'm pretty surprised. Thanks for sharing it is good to know the Bulls are not alone in their assinine demands.

ACE


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I don't think that is too much to ask either, Ben made an error of judgement in the way he protested, or maybe he just completely forgot. Who knows? In any case I do realize that Wallace IS a star *and I don't think the fact that he wants to wear a headband that he has made symbol over the past decade is all that surprising or makes him selfish, destructive, or feces.*


Do you really think my comments these last two days about Benedict stem from the harmless "want" to wear a headband? 

His liking to wear a headband is not what is making him a selfish, destructive piece of crap.

Me "wanting" to sleep with Ashly Judd doesn't make me selfish or destructive to my family. Actually sleeping with Ashly Judd does.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you really think my comments these last two days about Benedict stem from the harmless "want" to wear a headband?
> 
> His liking to wear a headband is not what is making him a selfish, destructive piece of crap.
> 
> Me "wanting" to sleep with Ashly Judd doesn't make me selfish or destructive to my family. Actually <b>sleeping with Ashly Judd</b> does.


No, you can't do this Ron. Ashly is my gal (in my dream).:lol:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Thats a bit of a shock to me. Not so much with hard *** Pat Riley but with Nate..I'm pretty surprised. Thanks for sharing it is good to know the Bulls are not alone in their assinine demands.
> 
> ACE


Nate's a pretty tough coach in his own right. He imposed lots and lots of rules on the Blazers when he bacame coach.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you really think my comments these last two days about Benedict stem from the harmless "want" to wear a headband?
> 
> His liking to wear a headband is not what is making him a selfish, destructive piece of crap.
> 
> * Me "wanting" to sleep with Ashly Judd doesn't make me selfish or destructive to my family. Actually sleeping with Ashly Judd does.*


That depends. If you sleep with her, find her disappointing and forgettable and nobody finds out, you might move on and no one is the wiser. If you don't sleep with her but "want" to sleep with her to the point you're annoying (like asking the SO to wear an Ashly Judd mask to bead and reinact scenes from A Time to Kill)... you might be doing some damage there.

The action is the expression of the desire. In this case it was an extremely poor expression, but it's also quite possible Wallace's desire itself is simply overpowering and destructive. We are talking about very highly paid, very emotional people who are inclined to both superstition and my way or the highway personalities.

That can't be ignored and, even though we might like it, uniquely talented people rarely come in neat, rational packages.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Until you explain how Pax should have known that Wallace apparently felt so deeply about his headband that being unable to wear it would make him brutally unhappy



Bring it up and figure it out during the contract negotiations? 

Just a quick, off-the-top of the head idea. Crazy, I know.

One would think that in some kind of team brainstorming session of the Bulls leadership this would be on one of the items discussed. We're talking about committing 60 million dollars over 4 years and completing a painful 3 year Cap Space building plan. If it was not, the Bulls are run by fools.

This *has* to be run by Wallace or a rule change *has* to occur before the press conference. Some off the cuff comment between Skiles and Wallace on the day of the press conference is useless. What the hell kind of way to run a multi-million dollar business is that? Idiots.

If you are looking to sign Dennis Rodman to a multi year deal, you would be a fool not to discuss a team's no colored hair policy, if the team has one.

If you are looking to sign Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to a multi year deal, you would be a fool not to discuss a team's no goggles policy, if the team has one.

If you are looking to sign Ben Wallace to a multi year deal, you would be a fool not to discuss a team's no headband policy, if the team has one.


As for Ben throwing a fit and trying to undermine the coach when things are not going his way.... he has a track record of doing this. No suprise on this front.



If it really is Ben acting like a brat due to diminishing skills, then shame on Paxson for devoting 60 million to a known brat that is already ineffective. Makes the boneheaded moves of dumping Curry and Chandler even more boneheaded, if you are trying to win now.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> The action is the expression of the desire. In this case it was an extremely poor expression, but it's also quite possible Wallace's desire itself is simply overpowering and destructive.


I don't believe Wallace ever gave much of a hoot about the headband at all and I think the reported facts pretty well support that belief.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The fact that the Bulls are in this pickle to being with falls on Paxson. Big Ben is behaving as expected, based on his past.
> 
> From this point on, both sides have decisions to make.
> 
> ...


I largely agree with Ron Cey's outline of the facts, but I agree with this as well. There was enough out there that Pax should have been on notice that Wallace's head, in general, was an item of concern, and that some discussions in general about the generally unusual rules the Bulls put in effect should have been had before signing to make sure all were on the same page. When you put forth a series of rules like that that you know are likely to affect a guy, it's sensible to bring them up.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you really think my comments these last two days about Benedict stem from the harmless "want" to wear a headband?
> 
> His liking to wear a headband is not what is making him a selfish, destructive piece of crap.
> 
> Me "wanting" to sleep with Ashly Judd doesn't make me selfish or destructive to my family. Actually sleeping with Ashly Judd does.


No but I think your overstating Wallace's act and making him sound like a traitor to the team, a complete insubordinate when really the issue in question is too small to forment any serious allegations against him. And for all we know maybe Wallace forgot about the rule? I haven't heard Wallace say "I will wear a headband if I want and screw Skiles" have you? THAT would be cause for all of the remarks against Wallace.

ACE


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> No but I think your overstating Wallace's act and making him sound like a traitor to the team, a complete insubordinate when really the issue in question is too small to forment any serious allegations against him. <b>And for all we know maybe Wallace forgot about the rule? I haven't heard Wallace say "I will wear a headband if I want and screw Skiles" have you? </b>THAT would be cause for all of the remarks against Wallace.
> 
> ACE


You can't be serious.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> No but I think your overstating Wallace's act and making him sound like a traitor to the team, a complete insubordinate when really the issue in question is too small to forment any serious allegations against him.


Thats because you keep focusing on the headband, and not the insubordination. As I said in another thread, I consider this to be the most significant negative thing to happen to the Bulls (excepting J-Will's injury) in the post-Jordan Era. 



> And for all we know maybe Wallace forgot about the rule?


No. We do know that he didn't "forget" the rule. First, its a laughable notion. He's beeing playing without a headband all preseason, and for 12 straight regular season games and then, suddenly, he forgets *why* he hasn't been wearing it? That is ludicrous.

But that isn't the proof. The proof is that, after being benched for wearing it, and then taking it off so as to be able to re-enter the game: *He put it on again, and was benched again.* How can you seriously suggest that it wasn't deliberate insubordination?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hustle said:


>




GO TIGERS!!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thats because you keep focusing on the headband, and not the insubordination. As I said in another thread, I consider this to be the most significant negative thing to happen to the Bulls (excepting J-Will's injury) in the post-Jordan Era.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry. I guess it is difficult for me to view a basketball player wearing a headband as "insubordination". But clearly Ben is breaking one of the Bulls most sacred and holy rules, we should waive him and cut our losses now! A headband today, whats next? Is he going to want to wear his old Virginia Union shorts under his Bulls shorts? What is ludicrous is that a team even instituted such a goofy rule in the first place. And I don't know WHAT goes on in Ben Wallace's mind since I am not him. Maybe he took it off when told to and was following the game and when he got called back in he just put it back on without even thinking, did you ever consider that? No, of course not because surely a 4 time DPOY who plays with tons of fire is going to have the same sort of mentality and careful responsible nature of an accountant or an attorney....just as we fans demand!

ACE


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I'm sorry. I guess it is difficult for me to view a basketball player wearing a headband as "insubordination". But clearly Ben is breaking one of the Bulls most sacred and holy rules, we should waive him and cut our losses now! A headband today, whats next? Is he going to want to wear his old Virginia Union shorts under his Bulls shorts? What is ludicrous is that a team even instituted such a goofy rule in the first place. And I don't know WHAT goes on in Ben Wallace's mind since I am not him. Maybe he took it off when told to and was following the game and when he got called back in he just put it back on without even thinking, did you ever consider that? No, of course not because surely a 4 time DPOY who plays with tons of fire is going to have the same sort of mentality and careful responsible nature of an accountant or an attorney....just as we fans demand!
> 
> ACE


Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar. All for the bean counters stand up and hollar!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'm having a difficult time understanding why folks think this is about a stupid headband and also why Wallace is being absolved of all responsibility in this...

Suppose you go to a job interview. You ask about benfit packages, vacation time, work hours and such but neither side mentions, or asks, that there is a dress code in effect that everyone must wear blue blazers while in the office. You hate blue blazers. You don't even own one, but the offer is really good so on goes the blue blazer. While your working you find out that you really don't get along with some of the employees in the cubicles around you. Nobodies fault, it's just not the best fit. Also, your boss(es) are asking you to do things that are out of your expertise/comfort zone. You're getting increasingly frustrated and your job performance isn't up to par. So, what do you do? Go to your boss(es) and discuss your frustration or come to work the next day in a lime-green blazer?

The color of the blazer really isn't the issue. Neither is the stupid headband. It's probably all Wallace could think to do to show his dissatisfaction with things because he _knew_ about the no headband policy. (So, Ace, that pretty much shoots down your "Oh, perhaps he just forgot about it" theory) It isn't about taping ankles either as apparently Wallace and Griffin are expempt from having their ankles taped. I'd be willing to wager it's more about fronting the post. It's more about not fitting completely in. It's more about missing what he had in Detrot and about one mans gross act of insubordination in trying to show his displeasure.

While the Skaxson haters are having a field day claiming that it's all their fault, they seem to completely disregard that communication is a two-way street. Hell, not mentioning headbands during negotiations is nothing. According to the lynch mob, where Pax and Skiles really screwed up is in not mentioning the defensive philosophy of fonting the post (which Wallace doesn't like to do). THAT'S what you folks should be foaming at the mouth about - not friggin headbands. But, as is par for the course, you can't see the forest for the trees in an effort to focus not on the problem but the symptom instead.

Carry on.

This has absolutely nothing to do with a headband people. It's simply a symbol Wallace used to show his displeasure and his frustration - just like the green blazer.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


>


I know that this image comes up when you do a Google image search for Skiles, but I'm pretty sure it's not him, but one of his high-school teammates.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I know that this image comes up when you do a Google image search for Skiles, but I'm pretty sure it's not him, but one of his high-school teammates.


Yeah, I think we've had this discussion before. DePauw is my beloved alma mater, and we know Skiles went to Michigan State, so it's not him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I'm having a difficult time understanding why folks think this is about a stupid headband and also why Wallace is being absolved of all responsibility in this...
> 
> Suppose you go to a job interview. You ask about benfit packages, vacation time, work hours and such but neither side mentions, or asks, that there is a dress code in effect that everyone must wear blue blazers while in the office. You hate blue blazers. You don't even own one, but the offer is really good so on goes the blue blazer. While your working you find out that you really don't get along with some of the employees in the cubicles around you. Nobodies fault, it's just not the best fit. Also, your boss(es) are asking you to do things that are out of your expertise/comfort zone. You're getting increasingly frustrated and your job performance isn't up to par. So, what do you do? Go to your boss(es) and discuss your frustration or come to work the next day in a lime-green blazer?
> 
> ...



Yeah lets just boil this down to the way we handle interaction with our careers because we all know that being an accountant, lawyer, or real estate salesperson with a blue blazer is just the same as being an athelete with a 60million dollar contract and bling big enough to blind you. Good point.

ACE


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yeah, I think we've had this discussion before. DePauw is my beloved alma mater, and we know Skiles went to Michigan State, so it's not him.


Actually I didn't google it it was attached to a Skiles vs. Wallace article somewhere.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The fact that the Bulls are in this pickle to being with falls on Paxson. Big Ben is behaving as expected, based on his past.


The Bulls are also behaving as expected based on their past. Wallace also should have known better.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah lets just boil this down to the way we handle interaction with our careers because we all know that being an accountant, lawyer, or real estate salesperson with a blue blazer is just the same as being an athelete with a 60million dollar contract and bling big enough to blind you. Good point.
> 
> ACE


Are you really this limited in your thinking? It's an example for crying out loud. So, am I to understand that in your world, "bling" (as you call it) is a license to act in whatever manner you deem suits your particular mood at the time? Are you so blinded by said "bling" that you can't see that this has zero to do with a headband? So I know for future reference - could you inform me as to the cutoff on the dollar amount and "bling" as to when a person can act in any manner they want and when they should, oh, say, adhere to workplace rules and dress codes.

This is some of the most bass-ackwards thinking I've encountered in quite a while.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Are you really this limited in your thinking? It's an example for crying out loud. So, am I to understand that in your world, "bling" (as you call it) is a license to act in whatever manner you deem suits your particular mood at the time? Are you so blinded by said "bling" that you can't see that this has zero to do with a headband? So I know for future reference - could you inform me as to the cutoff on the dollar amount and "bling" as to when a person can act in any manner they want and when they should, oh, say, adhere to workplace rules and dress codes.
> 
> This is some of the most bass-ackwards thinking I've encountered in quite a while.


I don't think I am the one who is being "limited in their thinking." You have a level of comfort viewing players lifestyles and careers as being, not all that dissimilar from an average Joe when in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. And I hate to break it to you but if you have a $60 million dollar contract, you CAN basically act anyway you want. I am not saying that is the best thing or that earning a lot of money or having bling SHOULD allow them to act however they want, but this is America and money talks. I'm not blinded at all but I don't know what else it would have to do with if it weren't the teams headband rule. Maybe your right and Wallace sat up all night plotting and scheming on just how he could most effectively forment dispute and rebellion against the coaches and orginizations and then he had the brilliant evil plan of wearing a headband...hell I don't know. 

And I can tell you what that cutoff point is, when you don't have to worry about working ever again then yes, if you choose to, you can be a ******* and not adhere to workplace rules and dress codes! I know this is shocking to you and I have probably just changed your perception of reality but it is indeed a very simple fact. 

This "job" isn't the same as some 9-5 gig, thats what yuo don't get. These players are stars, fawned over by fans, coaches, gm's, and really hot ladies in the stands. They are wealthy beyond most of our dreams of avarice. There is most definitley a different standard than with most Joe Schmoes (thats you and me in case your losing track). In any case, Wallace was wrong to flaunt the rule, even if the rule is retarded, which it is. Why should basketball players not be allowed to use basketball accessories? how is that a good basketball decision? But the thing your missing is Wallace probably doesn't even care and thats about par for the course with most professional atheletes. They are not here to fulfill your definition of "team" and this is not Hoosiers.

ACE


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Maybe he took it off when told to and was following the game and when he got called back in he just put it back on without even thinking, did you ever consider that?


No, I didn't. I also did not consider that perhaps he has multiple personality disorder and that when he donned his headband the first and second time, he did it as an entity that wasn't even Ben Wallace at all.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, I didn't. I also did not consider that perhaps he has multiple personality disorder and that when he donned his headband the first and second time, he did it as an entity that wasn't even Ben Wallace at all.


Well see, you need to expand your thinking man! :yay: 


ACE


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> These are facts (or statements) taken from identified sources:
> 
> 1) Skiles and Paxson did not inform Ben Wallace about a headband rule during a $60 million contract negotation that exceeded by $12 million, Wallace's next best offer.
> 
> ...


Well said, as usual.



> My wife and I got in a HUGE argument one time about the placement of my humidor in our home. The argument had nothing to do with a humidor.












Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

-- Sigmund Freud


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Well see, you need to expand your thinking man! :yay:
> 
> 
> ACE


:biggrin: Seriously, Ace. If it was an accident, he'd have just taken it off, we'd have been told by him and the team it was an innocent mistake, and that would be the end of it.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't think I am the one who is being "limited in their thinking." You have a level of comfort viewing players lifestyles and careers as being, not all that dissimilar from an average Joe when in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. And I hate to break it to you but if you have a $60 million dollar contract, you CAN basically act anyway you want. I am not saying that is the best thing or that earning a lot of money or having bling SHOULD allow them to act however they want, but this is America and money talks. I'm not blinded at all but I don't know what else it would have to do with if it weren't the teams headband rule. Maybe your right and Wallace sat up all night plotting and scheming on just how he could most effectively forment dispute and rebellion against the coaches and orginizations and then he had the brilliant evil plan of wearing a headband...hell I don't know.
> 
> And I can tell you what that cutoff point is, when you don't have to worry about working ever again then yes, if you choose to, you can be a ******* and not adhere to workplace rules and dress codes! I know this is shocking to you and I have probably just changed your perception of reality but it is indeed a very simple fact.
> 
> ...


I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say... Wow. Still can't see that it's not about the headband?

I have enough $ (or bling if you want to call it that) to not have to worry over money. If I were to swing by someones house and have at their wife, would that be OK? I mean, I'm set for life and by your criteria can do whatever the hell I please. It's a stupid and extreme example isn't it? That's completely insuting (at least I hope it is) and yet that's what I'm reading here. If you have enough cash you can do whatever you please.

Forget baskeball. How can a society function if a whole subset can just do whatever the hell they want simply because they have money? It's a ludicrous thought.

Back to Basketball and sports in general... It's a team game. You have to work together to win. I can only infer from you position that you have never participated in organized team sports. There's a hierachy in place and rules enforced for a reason. What's the point of having a GM or a coach or manager or whatever if you seem to think that if you get paid enough the rules don't apply to you? What kind of a teammate is that? So, yes Ace, there is a parallel between Joe Cubicle and the Superstar bling-bling weath-beyond-imagination athlete. What's to stop a player from taking it further if, by your admitted stance, rules don't apply to them. Choke a coach? Kick a camera man? Strike a game official? Where is the line drawn?

The message you're sending out is flat-out wrong. Make enough money. Do what you please. Even in team sports at the highest levels and monies there are rules. Some make sense, some don't. The team ceases to function at its' best when the rules no longer have meaning. C'mon man. I KNOW you've gone to the Y or the playground and gotten in pickup games where there's the one guy who, the instant he gets the ball you can forget about ever seeing it again. Who thinks he's the end-all be all of a friggin playground game and who honestly believes that the seven steps he took to the basket weren't any big deal. The rules of the game don't apply to him while he's breaking them but you know that he's the biggest crybaby when it works the other way.

This isn't about any rule or headband Ace. This isn't about how much bling someone has. It's about the choice that a man made to show his frustration. A poor choice. All that I can hope comes of this is that Wallaces actions help to bring him in line with the team and the team in line with him. That'll bring wins. That's what I'd like to see.

Anywho. I'll bow out of this thing now. I've said my piece. I don't agree with your stance on high-paid athletes. You're still a damn good poster and I enjoy reading you. I really get a kick out of the back-and-forth dialogue. It can make a sometimes slow workday go by faster. thanks!


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> :yay:
> 
> 
> ACE


it it just me or is that a high quality smilie?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> And I hate to break it to you but if you have a $60 million dollar contract, you CAN basically act anyway you want. I am not saying that is the best thing or that earning a lot of money or having bling SHOULD allow them to act however they want, but this is America and money talks.


I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Wallace has all the leverage here. The Bulls can suspend and fine him for breaking the team rules which - if it happened enough times - could make a sizeable dent in his $60 million. Furthermore, look at what just happened with Larry Brown in NY. He violated a couple of clauses in his contract and wound up settling for just $18.5 million of the $40 million he would have otherwise been owed. If Ben Wallace were to refuse to show up and play by the team rules, the Bulls are by no means without recourse.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Wallace has all the leverage here. The Bulls can suspend and fine him for breaking the team rules which - if it happened enough times - could make a sizeable dent in his $60 million. Furthermore, look at what just happened with Larry Brown in NY. He violated a couple of clauses in his contract and wound up settling for just $18.5 million of the $40 million he would have otherwise been owed. If Ben Wallace were to refuse to show up and play by the team rules, the Bulls are by no means without recourse.


I looked at what happened to Larry Brown in New York, and I see no parallels to Wallace -- e.g., as far as I know, Wallace isn't doing things like tipping off the opponent to plays the Bulls are calling. Can you elaborate?

Wallace is getting his $60 million, whether the check is signed by Chairman Reinsdorf or some other less exalted, more ignoble owner.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> This is some of the most bass-ackwards thinking I've encountered in quite a while.



Actually, its right on the money.

Go to the upper-echelons of any profession. Top notch New York lawyers. Investment management guys. Investment bankers. Top flight surgeons. Many of these guys are highly paid and pampered, and expect to be. And their employers are willing to let them get away with what they want to if they deliver results. 

All-league level NBA basketball players are the same.

Some dime-a-dozen CPA, car salesman or garbage truck driver is not a proper comparison. Those scrubs have to toe the line or else they go hungry. Same with Michael Barrett, Linton Johnson and Rick Brunson.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And their employers are willing to let them get away with what they want to if they deliver results.


Yeah, but if we have a really terrific quarter, I'm still not allowed to wear sweats to our results presentations. So surely you can see the need for rules.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*UPDATE by KC*


_*Wallace: I'm not sorry*

Has ligament damage, chipped bones in right hand

By K.C. Johnson
Tribune staff reporter

November 28, 2006, 12:20 PM CST

Speaking for the first time since the Bulls fined him for wearing a headband, an unrepentant Ben Wallace said he consciously broke team rules but wants to move forward.

"I knew that we weren't allowed to wear the headbands," Wallace said. "If you know the rules and break them, you expect to be punished. I can't try to put myself above the team or anybody else and wear a headband like I did. I'm man enough to take the punishment. *But I'm not sorry."*

Wallace was blunt when asked why he wore the headband on Saturday night in New York.

*"I just felt like wearing it," Wallace said.*

*Wallace chuckled when told the Bulls are using his image while wearing a headband to promote the team. He added that he hoped general manager John Paxson would consider changing the rule.*

"I would hope they'd look at it and see we have a great group of guys here and that shouldn't affect the way we play," Wallace said. "I would hope they'd look at it and see there's no harm done in wearing a headband. Then again, it's their rule. They make the calls."_



http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...allace,1,7738193.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> *UPDATE by KC*
> 
> 
> _*Wallace: I'm not sorry*
> ...


Good. That at least sounds somewhat promising.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I looked at what happened to Larry Brown in New York, and I see no parallels to Wallace -- e.g., as far as I know, Wallace isn't doing things like tipping off the opponent to plays the Bulls are calling. Can you elaborate?
> 
> Wallace is getting his $60 million, whether the check is signed by Chairman Reinsdorf or some other less exalted, more ignoble owner.


I never heard anyone accuse Brown of tipping off the opponent with plays. As I understood it the Knicks claimed Brown violated two clauses in his contract, one dealt with talking to the media when it wasn't sanctioned by the team's publicists and the second had to do with critisizing Knicks players to others in the league which drove down their value.

I would be shocked if Wallace doesn't have a clause in his contract that he must abide by team rules (subject to the collective bargaining agreement). The Bulls obviously have the right to fine him for this transgression which is similar. Wallace wouldn't just be able to refuse to play or refuse to take the court without a headband without any consequences. He agreed to do certain things in return for the $60 million and if he breaches his contract the Bulls are entitled to damages.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I never heard anyone accuse Brown of tipping off the opponent with plays. As I understood it the Knicks claimed Brown violated two clauses in his contract, one dealt with talking to the media when it wasn't sanctioned by the team's publicists and the second had to do with critisizing Knicks players to others in the league which drove down their value.
> 
> I would be shocked if Wallace doesn't have a clause in his contract that he must abide by team rules (subject to the collective bargaining agreement). The Bulls obviously have the right to fine him for this transgression which is similar. Wallace wouldn't just be able to refuse to play or refuse to take the court without a headband without any consequences. He agreed to do certain things in return for the $60 million and if he breaches his contract the Bulls are entitled to damages.


I used tipping off the opponent as an example of player conduct analogous to what Brown was doing as a coach. He was calling his contacts around the league to find out what Isiah was doing in trade talks and then he'd submarine those trade talks. That sort of thing plus the NBA record 41 different starting lineup gave the Knicks a pretty strong case that Brown was trying to sabotage the team. 

So that's what I'm asking -- what sort of things has Ben done that are even remotely analogous to Brown's conduct? There's nothing about headbands in the CBA or uniform player contract, and if it ever went to arbitration, Wallace would have a ton of ammunitition -- 25+ of the 30 teams in the league let players wear headbands, there are a lot of non-commital, hem-and-haw statements about the policy by Pax, the team's marketing department organized a tacky giveaway program around the headband, Bulls players were allowed to play with headbands at a different point in the Paxson regime, etc.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Here's what I don't get. We keep going back and forth on insubordination or not, was it open defiance or just a statement or maybe sabatoge on the team's unity. And Pax and Skiles HAVE been too hypersensitive about this type of stuff. It's great to have a vision for the team and seek specific types of qualities from your players, but it's another thing to be inflexible in standing by your own personnel deicsions.

But a deeper question is... WHY? Let's say he's being insubordinate, or rebellious, or trying to "send a message". What is that message? What is he trying to say? Is this a cry for attention? Does he just want a showing that he's an important and welcome part of this team?

Ben Wallace has been famous for his reputation to go to work, every day, and play hard, every day, doing what needs to be done without being told. Is this all of his personal stuff coming out into his job? Is there anything that people can do to change that around?

Why is Ben Wallace an unhappy fellow? That's a much more important issue than why he wore the headband, what that might mean, or what message that might send. I'm much more interested in why he's unhappy as a whole.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:



> I used tipping off the opponent as an example of player conduct analogous to what Brown was doing as a coach. He was calling his contacts around the league to find out what Isiah was doing in trade talks and then he'd submarine those trade talks. That sort of thing plus the NBA record 41 different starting lineup gave the Knicks a pretty strong case that Brown was trying to sabotage the team.
> 
> So that's what I'm asking -- what sort of things has Ben done that are even remotely analogous to Brown's conduct? There's nothing about headbands in the CBA or uniform player contract, and if it ever went to arbitration, Wallace would have a ton of ammunitition -- 25+ of the 30 teams in the league let players wear headbands, there are a lot of non-commital, hem-and-haw statements about the policy by Pax, the team's marketing department organized a tacky giveaway program around the headband, Bulls players were allowed to play with headbands at a different point in the Paxson regime, etc.


If there was a breach of contract, the team would get back in return some estimate of the value they were denied by the player's breach which they had agreed to under the contract. Wallace has done nothing up to this point that would lead to the Bulls aruging he seriously breached his contract as in Brown's case. My point was only that he can't do anything that he wants as some people seem to suggest. If he refuses to play a game without a headband and as a result the Bulls keep him on the bench, they wouldn't be forced to pay his entire salary because there are undoubtedly terms in his contract that says he must obey the team rules (otherwise they wouldn't have been able to fine him for this first transgression and he could just fight teammates, show up late to practice, scream at the coach, etc. whenever he wanted) and he's denying the Bulls what they bargained for in the contract (him being on the floor and playing). If Wallace refuses to enter games on a regular basis or show up to games the Bulls don't have to pay him. If he just commits run of the mill violations of the team rules the Bulls will just slap him with fines which isn't a huge deal but considering that he signed with the Bulls because they offered $60 million that money will be somewhat important to him and will add up over time. 

So yeah, I didn't mean to say that the Bulls can get millions from Ben for refusing to wear a headband once but he can't extort them into doing anything and everything he wants the way some seemed to be suggesting. If he doesn't obey the rules the Bulls do have some recourse. He doesn't want to be unhappy, he doesn't want to be suspended, he doesn't want to be fined, he doesn't want his name dragged through the mud.


----------

