# He's got you all fooled.



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Think about this , a person tells you he's rebuilding a team and when it gets good he'll pay to make it great. Until then its more rebuilding and maybe we'll see.

Sounds good huh? or does it ? Do you think the fans in L.A. or N.Y. could give a damn if their big market team wants to wait on their young players to develop and carry them . Do you think Knick fans would take this from Jimmy Dolan? Or laker fans from jerry Buss , why do bulls fans accept this from Jerry reinsdorf? In both of the other cities when it was decided that the core of the team wasn't good enough , things happened people got fired and players got moved , teams morgaged their futures and the hopes of the fanbase was satisfied. 

The lakers are title contenders with a very good chance to come out of this season with a championship. When they decided last years team wasn't good enough they got the players to make people say they were the favorites to win in the preseason , showing they had put in their work over the offseason.

The knicks which are mired in mediocrity are consistently trying to aquire the right mix of players and will drive themselves into luxury tax hell for a 35 win team if it means they have the talent on that team to be much better, which they do. They have their fair share of overpaid players but they dont care about that when its time to get more talent. Why do the Bulls care so much , they are among the most profitable teams in sports and they make more than both the knicks and the lakers ...yet they wont spend money on what it takes to build a contender and in fact have so thoroughly trained its fans that they blame the players for not playing better even though most of the fans know their team isn't good enough to compete on playoff level.

the knicks pay tim thomas near the maximum allowable and gave allan houston a 100 million $ contract ....while on this day bulls fans are debating whether or not their management will pay the MLE for steven jackson or TRY to resign their starting shooting guard , doesn't that sound a little fishy to you , that the bulls are merely according to their fans are just trying to stay even on a 23 win team while other big market teams are doing their best and dont care what it costs. In fact the bulls are actually crying a kind of poverty in regards to the luxury tax that they cannot afford to spend more because it would hurt them too much financially.

And who gets the blame ...the players , with this i disagree i blame management for creating a losing atmosphere in which the players dont believe they will get paid for their services , much like the clippers in years past in which their owner said much the same thing to very much the same effect. And how is that owner seen for his frugalness?

Why is the bulls owner any different ?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Think about this , a person tells you he's rebuilding a team and when it gets good he'll pay to make it great. Until then its more rebuilding and maybe we'll see.
> 
> Sounds good huh? or does it ? Do you think the fans in L.A. or N.Y. could give a damn if their big market team wants to wait on their young players to develop and carry them . Do you think Knick fans would take this from Jimmy Dolan? Or laker fans from jerry Buss , why do bulls fans accept this from Jerry reinsdorf? In both of the other cities when it was decided that the core of the team wasn't good enough , things happened people got fired and players got moved , teams morgaged their futures and the hopes of the fanbase was satisfied.
> ...


Good post! makes me think. :yes:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I agree with you happyG. Reinsdorf has always struck me as a business man first, Sox fan second, and Bulls fan third. He's made more money in 6 losing seasons than our championship run. He seems pretty content to sit on those past rings and field a competitive team. IMO he'd trade those 6 rings for 1 White Sox one.

New York fans are a different breed altogether and I respect them for that. The hubris, the sense of entitlement, the passio makes them the #1 sports city anywhere. Here in Chicago we don't have that same standard by our owners or our fans. Just the reality of things.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Best post I have read in a long time. We all spend so much time and energy regarding Pax, Chandler, Crawford, etc. etc. that the real cause of the Bulls woes is entirely overlooked. You may recall some posts I have made over the last few years regarding how loyalty is more important to Reinsdorf than winning. Not that loyalty is a bad trait, but misplaced loyalty is what kept Krause on the payroll for so many years and that is why Pax was hired.

Everything about the Bulls flows from Reinsdorfs ego. If anything he should forget about the luxury tax and pay for the type of players loyal Bulls fans deserve after so many miserable years. So what if the team breaks even or has a small loss for a couple of years. Yes, Reinsdorf and his fat cat pals on the Board should repay the loyalty people have shown the team.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wasn't Reinsdorf the one that pushed for the Jalen Rose deal?


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> IMO he'd trade those 6 rings for 1 White Sox one.


I heard that Reinsdorf actually SAID something to that effect a few weeks back.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

There is a lot of evidence to say that the bulls players have bought into that they are fighting each other for a piece of the pie. For instance when anyone asks hassell or hoiberg whats the big difference between the bulls and the wolves both trent and fred say its the encouragement they have from their teammates. In that the teammates on the wolves tell them to keep shooting and they apreciate the things they do on the floor.

Thats not the case on the bulls where everyone is on the clock to make a huge impact before their rookie contract is up. where everyone wants to play and thats just the end of it. it was jay vs. jamal. its eddie vs.trent vs.fred , and marcus vs tyson vs. donyell too many players and not enough defined roles because everyone is clamoring to be number 1 and it hasn't changed much this year with scottie kendall , lint, and dupree .Nobody is secure so no one can just think of team . Outside of curry and kirk is there a single player on the team who is assured of coming back next season that the bulls wouldn't deal in a heartbeat for a cap friendly player?

Pax talks of a losing mentality ...where is it really coming from. because i cant remember the bulls aquiring a player in some time in which i thought he was a loser before he got here.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Good and Sad stuff Grinch , at least for a Bulls Fan.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Do you think the fans in L.A. or N.Y. could give a damn if their big market team wants to wait on their young players to develop and carry them .


bulls fans have fooled themselves (myself especially). you're right about NY and LA. the fans AND the media wouldn't be satisfied w/o a sucessful or competitive team. bulls fans will keep buying tickets and league pass to watch youngsters develop. no wonder we went for the NBDL/CBA tryouts that Pax held late in the season. 

there's no direct pressure from the press or obvious outrage from the fans. Reinsdorf realizes he needs to put a competitive product out there, but considering Chicago's reactions we are telling him to take his time.

look what happened in charlotte. for whatever reason they weren't happy with Shinn (i think it was for letting LJ and Mourning go). the fans stopped coming to games even after they had a playoff team. He got the messeage so he relocated the hornets. and lo and behold the nba thinks there is enough of a fan base for a new team in Charlotte, the fans have been rewarded.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

Wait, are we putting NY up on a pedestal as a good example here? The fans in NY would raise a ruckus about not having a competitive team, yes, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to keep one if it means overpaying. Being frugal in the NBA isn't just about not paying anyone big bucks; it's also about flexibility. How did LA entice Shaq? They had cap space, and lots of it, to sign him as a free agent. Having space means you can sign players outright, without depending on another team. 

Sure, that's not always easy now that there's a max cap, as the Bulls painfully found out in 2000, but the solution isn't to go the way the Knicks have. They are way, way, over the cap, and they will be for years. Whenever they want a new player, they have to pay double the money for any signed with their mid-level exception. If they want to change their roster otherwise, they have to somehow negotiate a deal and give up extra players to make salaries match or to satisfy the other team(s). To acquire a star, they have to give up a star, or at least someone being paid like a star, and likely extra compensation. I was as surprised as anyone that Isiah was able to make major trades, but they gave up a lot to get a lot, and they didn't get much younger. Being mediocre but competitive means that the Knicks will never have a high draft pick and will have to luck out to develop significant young talent internally. Until they get more flexibility, they're doomed to years of tweaking and exchanging big contracts. That may appease the fans somewhat cuz they'll always be in the bottom of the playoff hunt, but IMO they're never going to make a big move up, because they're not willing to be bad even one year to clear off the drawing board, so to speak.

The Bulls haven't exactly been great shakes, either. We didn't keep any of our assets from the championship years, although most of them wouldn't have stayed anyway. The sacrifice for the last few championships was the future for the present, as the team was never retooled with any youth, a fate the Lakers will be staring at as well unless Kobe stays. Developing entirely through the draft seems like a failure, especially since we didn't have the patience to keep our old draft picks and traded them away for newer ones. It's an endless, vicious cycle until we get a fit that gets us more wins and entices our draft picks to stay and management to keep them. But I wouldn't want to be the Knicks at all. Until their huge contracts expire, they have only a present through lateral trades, and not much of a future.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the thing is I love basketball and i'll watch bad bulls basketball just as quickly as i'll watch good bulls basketball. What I dont like is the management telling me i've been watching players for no apparent reason, merely as time spender , because they have no desire to actively try to improve.And the worst part is that they have their fans believing there is a valid excuse for it all.

whats the point of being a big market team if you aren't going to spend money like one , they will surely collect $ like they are one.Case in point of what I mean , the new york mets who suck every year , but at least they try like heck to be better , this i will accept and smile about and even cheer for , but if they were content to be laughingstocks i wouldn't. And thats how i feel about the bulls that they aren't really trying to be better .

you dont like the example the knicks have set because they are in luxury tax land? All I see is that being in the luxury tax stopped their GM from doing nothing when he wanted to. He got stephon marbury and a host of other players and didn't care at all how much it costs. And I dont believe it stops paxson either being close to the luxury tax in fact because he has the resources of a big market team he could work wonders on the talent side of trades by taking on extra salary , he could make real killings ....if only his boss would flip the bill, which he wont. And thats the sad part to watch teams like ny stay ahead of the bulls because they will do whatever it takes to stay that way.

what good is future financial flexibility if you know in the future nothing will be spent anyway?


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

I think this outlook is nothing but sour grapes towards management. I fully back the way the Bulls have managed the team and blame bad luck more than anything.

I think the Bulls organization has shown it wants to win and will shell out money to do so. There's no arguing the bankroll of those 1996-1998 title teams.

And you complain that they haven't gone out and signed anyone big, but it hasn't been for lack of trying. The issue is not frugality, it's that they exercise common sense. They simply aren't going to throw a ton of money at guys that aren't winners. Last guys they did that with? Mercer, ERob and Jalen. Look how well that turned out.

The alternative you pose is that the Bulls should be going out and overpaying guys like Tim Thomas? These signings cripple a team! The Knicks management certainly looks to be trying hard to be competitive, but does anyone think their team has the potential makings of a champion? Even the potential makings of a 5th or 6th seed? I sure don't. And meanwhile, they will be mired in salary-cap inflexibility for the next 6 years with little hope of improvement. Their entire future has been mortgaged so that they could be a 7th seed now instead of in the lottery. Sweet.

Bottom line is this, this Bulls team must be turned into a winner on the backs of its draft picks and it will unfortunately take time. Making that Brand/Chandler trade set things back a bit, but it was an understandable move. Yes it was a big gamble, but whether or not it turns out to be the right trade in the end, I think you need to take some risks like that to become a champion.

Management is not trying to pull a fast one on the fans. They are trying their damnedest to be competitive now, but NOT at the expense of the long term potential of the team. Thus, you will continue to see short term contracts going to veterans (ala Pippen) who can help our competitiveness now, while not strapping us for cash when we will truly need it. I guarantee if there's a QUALITY free agent out there (and Stephen Jackson is NOT that guy) we will do whatever we can to put them in a Bulls uniform. But remember, we are already limited by cap room, which by the way should tell you we're doing our best to be competitive now.

I mean, if you were Paxson, who would you go out and sign this offseason? Fact is, we don't really have any good options... And I'd much rather stand pat and continue to invest in our draft picks than throw $7 mill a year at some piece of crap like Stephen Jackson.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

CBF, I think you make some good points about NBA franchises in general but I disagree with your assessment of this franchise at this time. First of all I would want Jackson on my team. He destroyed the Bulls the last few times they met. I have also seen him do that to other teams. I think he will be a break-out guy for 2004-2005. If we can pay EROB this kind of money why can't we pay Jackson? He is a young veteran, tough, and has been on winning teams. 

Although I think your basic financial reasoning is generally sound it does not fit this team at this time. Let's get this team winning and let Reinsdorf and his pals eat the salaries of Pippen, EROB and AD for a year or two. This won't mortgage the Bulls future forever like the Knicks. 

I think Bulls fans make the mistake of identifying with management when management is cheap, stupid or uncaring. Being a fan of any sports team is a psychological trick of human nature. Remember how Cubs fans allowed the Wrigley family to screw them for decades because they were so loyal. I see the same pattern with this team. As long as fans will fill the stadium management will hire stooges like Paxson at basement type wages. Wake up Bulls fans!


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> CBF, I think you make some good points about NBA franchises in general but I disagree with your assessment of this franchise at this time. First of all I would want Jackson on my team. He destroyed the Bulls the last few times they met. I have also seen him do that to other teams. I think he will be a break-out guy for 2004-2005. If we can pay EROB this kind of money why can't we pay Jackson? He is a young veteran, tough, and has been on winning teams.


I don't think overpaying ERob is justification for overpaying for Jackson. If anything we should learn a lesson from ERob and not make the same mistake twice.



> Although I think your basic financial reasoning is generally sound it does not fit this team at this time. Let's get this team winning and let Reinsdorf and his pals eat the salaries of Pippen, EROB and AD for a year or two. This won't mortgage the Bulls future forever like the Knicks.


I agree that we should try to make some investiture in winning now, IF APPROPRIATE. However, it's easier said than done. Consider that we are already capped out (more or less). If there's a way to maneuver under the soft cap provisions to take on a $60-70 million payroll I'm all for it, and I think management would be too. But these maneuvers can be tough to pull off logistically.



> I think Bulls fans make the mistake of identifying with management when management is cheap, stupid or uncaring. Being a fan of any sports team is a psychological trick of human nature. Remember how Cubs fans allowed the Wrigley family to screw them for decades because they were so loyal. I see the same pattern with this team. As long as fans will fill the stadium management will hire stooges like Paxson at basement type wages. Wake up Bulls fans!


I've attempted to examine the situation critically to see if maybe I'm pulling the wool over my own eyes, but I don't think I am in this case. Reinsdorf has a very strong track record of putting as much money out on the table as he can to be competitive. In some cases, he's put out too much on the table just to be competitive (more often with the Sox).

The Cubs have a long track record of maintaining a lower payroll in order to reap the profits, but teams under Reinsdorf never have before so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The track record I've seen is that Reinsdorf has always been WILLING to pay for players, but he also understands exercising discretion. When we've abandoned discretion for the sake of showing the fans that we want to competitive, we've gotten ourselves in trouble (Rose, Erob, Mercer). So unless I see a player that's worth investing in -- a player ready to be a long term quality starter at his position and not just a stopgap -- I'm going to go along with management's current philosophy.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

After the breakup of the dynasty, specifically, what moves have the Bulls made that were purely in an effort to save money? 

I don't buy the premise of this argument.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> After the breakup of the dynasty, specifically, what moves have the Bulls made that were purely in an effort to save money?
> 
> I don't buy the premise of this argument.


I never said the bulls dont try ,what i am saying is that the bulls aren't trying nearly enough, considering they are a big market team , even small market teams with deep pockets such as the blazers or the mavericks dont let the constraints of the system their teams play in stop them from putting out a winner.

the bulls aren't the bucks or the jazz yet thats the way they act , the jazz cant afford to go beyond the means of the luxury tax for a season or 2 , they need that extra income, the bulls are the most profitatble team in basketball and top 3 in all of sports, yet they cry poverty at the thought of the luxury tax.

what happens lets say in a season and the bulls are a 31 win team( a substantial improvement but still a lottery team ) and both chandler and curry were productive and healthy(lets say 18 and 7 for curry and 14 and 10 for chandler ...and they want a raise, a big one in max territory ....according to the climate set forth by the bulls owner , these players are going to walk, becuase he wont match any truly lucrative offer , that would also mean the bulls who have sold their fans on waiting for their young players to develop will have nothing to show for waiting through the 1999 -2002 drafts to see developing players develop and yet no payoff because at the end of it all they were left to walk.


----------



## AdamIllman (May 12, 2003)

if you're content on being mediocre for all of eternity..then sure go ahead and trade your young guys for big names. If you wanna contend for a championship some day...build around the young guys and be happy to stockpile lotto picks. You cant use the lakers as an example man they had shaq and kobe...you guys dont have anybody close to those 2. It's not like the lakers went out and spent pockets full of cash on Karl and Gary..they signed very small contracts. As for the knicks...they've completely screwed any chance at a decent future they ever had. They are going to continue to be a late lotto team for the next 5-6 years. A SMART fan..regardless of where he or she is from should realize that this league is about winning championships not getting put out in the first round and putting up 35 win seasons. If the Knicks fans are happy with 35 win seasons and would rather have that than bomb a few seasons while getting a great young core..then they arent real basketball fans.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>AdamIllman</b>!
> if you're content on being mediocre for all of eternity..then sure go ahead and trade your young guys for big names. If you wanna contend for a championship some day...build around the young guys and be happy to stockpile lotto picks. You cant use the lakers as an example man they had shaq and kobe...you guys dont have anybody close to those 2. It's not like the lakers went out and spent pockets full of cash on Karl and Gary..they signed very small contracts. As for the knicks...they've completely screwed any chance at a decent future they ever had. They are going to continue to be a late lotto team for the next 5-6 years. A SMART fan..regardless of where he or she is from should realize that this league is about winning championships not getting put out in the first round and putting up 35 win seasons. If the Knicks fans are happy with 35 win seasons and would rather have that than bomb a few seasons while getting a great young core..then they arent real basketball fans.


thats the thing though , the bulls aren't building through the draft on their current heading , the draft picks from 1999 are gone , the ones from 2000 soon will be and if the team isn't a winner next year so will the 2001 picks , the bulls aren't building through the draft as much as they are auditioning talent for the rest of the league.

trading Chandler for brand was one thing but now to say um ..ok no lets now get rid of chandler for another draft pick to take his place , one with a broken bone in his back no less, is running in place its not progressing and its merely moving the time table the bulls could possibly be a good team back, its wasting time and other big market teams dont do it , say what you will about the knicks but look at their line-up and look at the bulls , the knicks have a deep team with all 5 starters in their prime , the lakers are beating the world champs in a playoff series right now and were defending champs at this time last year. 

they are doing their job to make their teams competive now and in the future...are the bulls ?


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

> what happens lets say in a season and the bulls are a 31 win team( a substantial improvement but still a lottery team ) and both chandler and curry were productive and healthy(lets say 18 and 7 for curry and 14 and 10 for chandler ...and they want a raise, a big one in max territory ....according to the climate set forth by the bulls owner , these players are going to walk, becuase he wont match any truly lucrative offer , that would also mean the bulls who have sold their fans on waiting for their young players to develop will have nothing to show for waiting through the 1999 -2002 drafts to see developing players develop and yet no payoff because at the end of it all they were left to walk.



I guess the whole discussion boils down to the value of salary cap space.

In the scenario you outline, your criticism would be valid assuming Curry and Chandler's new contracts were in line with their values. If they are overpaid by another team, I disagree that Bulls fans would have "nothing". They would have Hinrich, Crawford (if re-signed), this year's pick, another lottery pick and the promise of nearly $20 million of Davis and Robinson's contracts coming off the books the following year. 

The worse possible scenario for any team is to be loser that is over the cap for the foreseeable future and can only get better through the draft. I see nothing wrong with the powers wanting to make sure they have assembled a winner before getting into the luxury tax area.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> I guess the whole discussion boils down to the value of salary cap space.
> 
> In the scenario you outline, your criticism would be valid assuming Curry and Chandler's new contracts were in line with their values. If they are overpaid by another team, I disagree that Bulls fans would have "nothing". They would have Hinrich, Crawford (if re-signed), this year's pick, another lottery pick and the promise of nearly $20 million of Davis and Robinson's contracts coming off the books the following year.
> ...


there are appoximately lets say 7 real title contenders in the league the nets , pistons ,pacers spurs lakers, t'wolves, kings and how many of them got their main players though the draft ?

2 the spurs and the wolves , they just happen to get the best 2 players in the league through the draft. the bulls are not likely to duplicate this and one day say they got the best player in the league through the draft with the players currently on their roster.and in all honesty the spurs got very lucky david robinson went down for a year , they were title contenders the year before .

the rest got their best players through trades (except the lakers shaq came through free agency), the rest took chances and did what was needed to make them winners ...not just build through the draft and relied on that to make them great.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> there are appoximately lets say 7 real title contenders in the league the nets , pistons ,pacers spurs lakers, t'wolves, kings and how many of them got their main players though the draft ?
> ...


Yes, but the Bulls don't have the pieces to trade for a Jason Kidd or a Chris Webber. 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the Bulls exceeding the cap if the players signed/re-signed are worth the money. Certainly, the Bulls have made a lot of bad moves over recent years, but they haven't let good players walk by not matching reasonable contracts.


----------



## epic (Mar 16, 2004)

i would far rather have the current bulls roster than the knicks current roster.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bulls don't have the pieces to trade for a Jason Kidd or a Chris Webber.
> ...


i say they do ...the knicks turned mcdyess and a bunch of spare parts into stephon marbury ....the nets turned stephon marbury into jason kidd.once upon a time the kings traded an aging mitch richmond for webber.

the t'wolves turned terrell brandon and joe smith into sam cassell and latrel sprewell.

look at any team in the league that is successful and you will see a big chance they at times had to spend money and made a commitment to be successful .

its true the bulls haven't let free agents go yet ...but they are about to and they have traded players before their contract came up (artest, brand which are really the only 2 whose contract could have come up by now) ...if you took a poll before this past season and asked who had the better roster the bulls or the knicks , most people would have said they would rather have had the bulls ...thats really not the case anymore becuase the knicks really improved themselves ...all they need is a training camp and they will most likely shoot up at least the atlantic division ...are the bulls prospects as good for the central?


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> ...say what you will about the knicks but look at their line-up and look at the bulls , the knicks have a deep team with all 5 starters in their prime , the lakers are beating the world champs in a playoff series right now and were defending champs at this time last year.
> 
> they are doing their job to make their teams competive now and in the future...are the bulls ?


Again, I don't see what you're seeing. Having 5 starters in their prime is a team that is very much in the present and old in the future and due for a retooling. The Knicks have Marbury and The Lakers' future hinges on Kobe, as Shaq is past his prime; if they can't keep him, they're due for a major rebuilding as well. Both these teams have a present but a shaky future. At least the Lakers have a pretty good present. The Knicks? Well, wait until next year.



> ...the knicks turned mcdyess and a bunch of spare parts into stephon marbury


Which again is why I say the Knicks aren't a model, because they don't have a championship team now and have little in the future. The trade wasn't all for spare parts. They did get immediately better in getting Marbury for Eisley, Ward, and McDyess, but the other part of the trade was Maciej Lampe, the draft rights to Milos Vujanic, their first round pick this year, and another first round pick next year. That last part is much of the youth influx that New York was due to receive in the next few years. Lampe was widely considered a steal for the Knicks last year, Vujanic is a decent point guard prospect in Europe, and the first round pick this year and in the future means NY isn't getting a whole lot younger anytime soon. They did the opposite gamble we did; rather than roll the dice on some developmental draft picks, they chose to deal away their draft picks for a current star and extra years of cap-eating contracts and gambling that Starbury in his prime is enough to put them over the top. But if Thomas is wrong, they have nothing left in the future. No draft picks, little in developmental talent. Their only option is really to continue bartering their big contracts and giving up their stars for other stars that might fit better, hopefully before their current stars fade.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> there are appoximately lets say 7 real title contenders in the league the nets , pistons ,pacers spurs lakers, t'wolves, kings and how many of them got their main players though the draft ?
> 
> 2 the spurs and the wolves , they just happen to get the best 2 players in the league through the draft. the bulls are not likely to duplicate this and one day say they got the best player in the league through the draft with the players currently on their roster.and in all honesty the spurs got very lucky david robinson went down for a year , they were title contenders the year before .
> 
> the rest got their best players through trades (except the lakers shaq came through free agency), the rest took chances and did what was needed to make them winners ...not just build through the draft and relied on that to make them great.


Well, let's see how much of the roster of those teams are self-grown through the draft.

Nets: Traded for Richard Jefferson and Jason Collins on draft day. Drafted Kenyon Martin. Now their leading scorer, starting center, and rebounder, respectively.

Pistons: Drafted Tayshaun Prince. Now their starting small forward.

Pacers: Drafted Austin Croshere, Jamaal Tinsley, Jeff Foster, Al Harrington, and Jonathon Bender, which is most of their bench and the starting point guard. I'll cheat and say they also drafted Reggie Miller, since he's still playing, and who's the most famous Pacer ever.

Spurs: Drafted Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili, who are all their major stars currently.

Lakers: Traded for Kobe on draft day. Future Hall of Famer.

Timberwolves: Drafted Kevin Garnett. Now MVP. Also drafted Szczerbiak, who'll be better after recovering from injury.

Kings: Drafted Peja Stojakovic, their leading scorer this year.

Also don't forget the Mavericks, whose biggest star, Nowitzki, was their own draft pick. Looks to me like all of those teams outside of the Pistons and the Pacers have some of their stars that they themselves raised, and all of them have drafted starters. Which isn't to say that good trades can't make a big difference, because they obviously have for a lot of those teams, too, but the draft is a powerful tool, because many of those teams also got their pieces from trading players they drafted for better fitting pieces. Jason Kidd was originally a Mav; the Mavs got Michael Finley as part of their trading Kidd away. They got Steve Nash partly through trading the draft rights to Pat Garrity and another pick. The Kings got Bibby from their trade of Jason Williams, who they drafted. The Nets and Lakers both used draft-day trades of their own picks for someone else's. The Pistons got Ben Wallace as part of the sign-and-trade with their former drafted star, Grant Hill. 

The Knicks don't have any draft picks or young players as weapons now (outside of using Frank Williams as weak trade bait, maybe), and I don't think the tinkering with Marbury was enough to get them much farther. That's why I don't really envy them that much.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, I don't see what you're seeing. Having 5 starters in their prime is a team that is very much in the present and old in the future and due for a retooling. The Knicks have Marbury and The Lakers' future hinges on Kobe, as Shaq is past his prime; if they can't keep him, they're due for a major rebuilding as well. Both these teams have a present but a shaky future. At least the Lakers have a pretty good present. The Knicks? Well, wait until next year.
> ...


thats the thing, the knicks who are known up and down for the luxury tax problems still managed to put together a team that had young talent such as lampe , vuljanic and a couple of picks and got marbury ....all while keeping their own lottery pick in sweetney they didn't exactly morgage their future seeing as they have marbury at 27 houston at 30 tim thomas at 26 at the perimeter positions and kurt thomas who is i believe 31 and nazr mohammed who i think is 28 ...they aren't old by any means and in 2 years that core will still be in its prime plus it will have sweetney who will be all of 25, demarr johnson who just turned 24 less than 2 weeks ago, frank williams who is 24 so they are fine in young talent and penny's expiring contract which the knicks will not hesitate to turn into a player who may be slightly overpaid like SAR ( or some other player who is paid like a maxtype player not quite max type calibur like antawn jamison)...they will only get better with time and they are already far better than the bulls currently are .

and what are the bulls prospects ? they have the 3 C's and hinrich and a bunch of untalented NBDLers and an overpaid bunch such as davis , JYD and e-rob ....the problem is since they dont want to pay the tax and they are already near the limit, they are letting their 2000 picks go despite the fact they are far from the worse players on the team , for salary reasons because according to the powers that be the team isn't winning enough to warrant keeping them . add to that if the bulls aren't winning enough (since this is the edict of the team owner that he will only go above the luxury tax threshold for a winning team which they aren't likely to be next year especially if they let their leading scorer go) they likely wont resign the other 2 C's because it will almost definitely send them over the luxury tax threshold. So where is the current bulls team heading in 2 years ...likely right back where it started .

As for the lakers they are as of now the odds on favorites to win the title , which is supoosedly what all the teams are gunning for plus they have won 3 or the last 4 years, if they have to rebuild fine but chances are even with a declining shaq and almost nothing else they will be better than the bulls next year and that in a worse case scenerio if payton malone and bryant leave but if not they are going to be great again for at least one more year....Its alot easier to face a bad future if you are at least getting to enjoy your present ...the bulls have a soon to be distant past and only that, they have no present and the future is very grim if they wont resign their young talent which they are very close to doing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, let's see how much of the roster of those teams are self-grown through the draft.
> ...


most of those teams drafted some of their core but usually got their best player elsewhere , i never said the draft isn't helpful in making a team but not a single one of them would be any good if they didn't go outside the box and go that extra mile for talent...no team except the wolves and spurs got their best player theough the draft and if the wolves didn't get spree and cassell the wolve would not have been able to resign garnett so where would they be?

the idea of getting your best players through the draft and it alone is the tactic of a stalling ,management...the franchise talent need longer to mature because it now comes out earlier meanwhile the team sucks whiles it waiting if you go by the bulls model as they try to hoard more picks...but if it isn't good enough at the time of a 2nd contract they wont resign them ...and when they had players that were good by the end of the 1st rookie contract they sent them away ...for another player who is likely to be gone in a year if the bulls dont get significantly better (TC) and basically JYD and A. Davis ...2 seasons later is what the trading of Artest has become since he was traded(with brad miller) for rose who was traded for davis and JYD.

they are essetially on the sterling plan which is to stockpile draft picks and hope one of them is a savior...that plan has worked for no one ...why should it work for the bulls ?


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> thats the thing, the knicks who are known up and down for the luxury tax problems still managed to put together a team that had young talent such as lampe , vuljanic and a couple of picks and got marbury ....all while keeping their own lottery pick in sweetney they didn't exactly morgage their future seeing as they have marbury at 27 houston at 30 tim thomas at 26 at the perimeter positions and kurt thomas who is i believe 31 and nazr mohammed who i think is 28 ...they aren't old by any means and in 2 years that core will still be in its prime plus it will have sweetney who will be all of 25, demarr johnson who just turned 24 less than 2 weeks ago, frank williams who is 24 so they are fine in young talent and penny's expiring contract which the knicks will not hesitate to turn into a player who may be slightly overpaid like SAR ( or some other player who is paid like a maxtype player not quite max type calibur like antawn jamison)...they will only get better with time and they are already far better than the bulls currently are .
> ...


The luxury tax doesn't have anything to do with the draft picks, and they're all gone now that they have Marbury. I do see the reasoning in that they don't think they'll have good picks anyway given their team makeup, but I'm not all that impressed with Sweetney, Johnson, and Williams. You're right, their new core will still be okay for a while, but they're not going to ever have any cap room while they're around, especially if they barter Hardaway's expiring contract for another long-term contract player. Their cap situation is already ludicrous as it is; they're up for $90+ million in salaries for the next two years, and they're still well over the cap in 2006-2007. If the luxury tax kicks in, they're going to pay an extra $30-$40 million _per season._ They need a successful season just to break even.

As for the Bulls, there's no proof yet that they're going to let Crawford walk. (Fizer's definitely going to walk.) And there's no saying for sure how the team will do next season to determine how much they're willing to spend for the other two C's. I still don't see where management has been hugely cheap. If they were as cheap as Sterling, they wouldn't have taken Rose's or AD's contract on in the first place. Look, I agree with you that becoming a revolving door for draft talent is a bad thing. I don't think management is that cheap to not think about resigning our players now, though, and I don't think it's a horrible idea to weigh their cost and the luxury tax against the record. If your team is at the bottom of the standings, unless you see good things in the future, why throw more money into the team, keep the same players around, and destroy your ability to attract free agents, too? That's why next year is vastly important, because it'll determine whether we're going to stick with our current rebuilding plan (the twin high schoolers) or not. They _have_ to make some progress.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> The luxury tax doesn't have anything to do with the draft picks, and they're all gone now that they have Marbury. I do see the reasoning in that they don't think they'll have good picks anyway given their team makeup, but I'm not all that impressed with Sweetney, Johnson, and Williams. You're right, their new core will still be okay for a while, but they're not going to ever have any cap room while they're around, especially if they barter Hardaway's expiring contract for another long-term contract player. Their cap situation is already ludicrous as it is; they're up for $90+ million in salaries for the next two years, and they're still well over the cap in 2006-2007. If the luxury tax kicks in, they're going to pay an extra $30-$40 million _per season._ They need a successful season just to break even.
> ...


the thing about salary caps and luxury taxes is that it only affects you if you let it . If you are over the salry cap by a a dollar all you can spend is the MLE and the vet exception ...the same as the luxury maxed out knicks . So the luxury tax is a non-factor with the knicks because they spend on the MLE every year while most teams pick and choose , they dont care the only teams that can actually outspend them are way under the cap by more than the MLE and most teams aren't ... and sweetney is a great talent , he is just buried behind alot of frontcourt talent in a clean and sober vin baker and kurt thomas ...but in the min. he did play he became 2nd in the league in off.reb. per min. and 7th overall in rebounds per minute. as he did get himself in the rotation. plus he shoots nearly 50% from the field and he like curry and chandler is 21 and is actually younger than tyson.

the bulls will let JC walk if his asking price is too high and it will be , there is exactly 1 player in the league who scores as much as JC who is not on his rookie contract whose contract wouldn't push the bulls into the luxury tax if it were JC's (michael redd makes only 4 mil a year ...if he were a FA this summer he would soon make alot more than that) the NBA pays for scorers thats just the way it is and 6 or 7 mil a year will put the bulls in luxury tax territory where they have stated they wont go for a bad team so he really is as good as gone. Fizers salary will be replaced by whatever 1st round draft pick the bulls get.

AD's and rose's contract saved the bulls $ because of who they were traded for ...essentially they are here because brad miller and artest aren't and since salaries had to match they didn't save at the time but within 2 years both miller and artest got big raises ...and thats where the bulls saved $...the bulls i'm not worried about as far as making a buck they are the most profitable team in basketball and 3rd overall in all team sports , i'm not terribly concered with them turning a profit because they will no matter what. but being a big market team they have an obligation to start acting like one and put out a winner and waiting through the draft and then not resigning its talent was not part of the deal , they were supposed to make the team grow and add on parts to help the team win , some of that is bad luck but some of it is not trying hard enough , and thats the part i dont want to tolerate.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

In light of the crawford deal i have decided to bump this thread. I did it to ask a question with the bulls deciding they weren't winning enough to justify paying JC , how many wins will the bulls have to get to justify paying chandler and curry, i think its 40(to get into the playoffs) and that is an unrealistic goal for the current bulls team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> The sacrifice for the last few championships was the future for the present, as the team was never retooled with any youth, a fate the Lakers will be staring at as well unless Kobe stays. Developing entirely through the draft seems like a failure, especially since we didn't have the patience to keep our old draft picks and traded them away for newer ones. It's an endless, vicious cycle until we get a fit that gets us more wins and entices our draft picks to stay and management to keep them. But I wouldn't want to be the Knicks at all. Until their huge contracts expire, they have only a present through lateral trades, and not much of a future.


The way I'd put it is this current Bulls team is sacrificing it's future and its present (Jamal... not that he's the whole future of course, but at least a cog of it, draft picks) to pay for the past (like Rose, AD, JYD, ERob, Pippen, Mutombo). Hell, the real irony is we aren't even paying for our own past... it's mostly someone else's past we're paying for, and a past that was never much when it was the present.

And yet, we repeat the mistakes... keep selling out our future to avoid having to pick up the check in the short term.

Pathetic, and there's absolutely no other way to describe. It'd be one thing if this team couldn't absorb the short-run hit, or even if they wouldn't improve by doing so, but they're just content to be complacent and kick the can down the road.

More or less, the Bulls are run by crummy businessmen who are saving a dime now by taking a **** on their long-term assets. Someone explain to me why this is a team that deserves our time, our hopes, our money or our attention. I don't see it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I won't give up League Pass because I like the NBA too much, but I've done all I can economically to stop enabling this madness--no games at the UC when I'm in town on holidays or vacations, no trips to Bulls games at MSG or the Meadowlands or the Fleet Center or First Union Center, no Bulls gear for my 16-month-old, etc. 

But I'm approaching the point where I'm going to have to cut my losses of time and energy, too. I am telling you right now that Bulls ownership looks at this team and its fans and has a hearty laugh at our expense (literally). They have got an immense cash cow that is rivalled only by the Yankees in terms of its year-in, year-out profitability. They ARE thinking short-term in that the overall value of the team plummets as we continue to stink (and the luster starts to wear off the UC; soon it'll be the NBA norm, not an exception), but keep in mind that to truly reap the benefits of franchise appreciation, one has to sell the franchise. I think the 30-40-50 million dollar operating profits are far more important to this group, particularly when there's no end to them in sight.

I couldn't agree more that Crawford wasn't a good long-term fit here, and $56 million over 7 years is too much. But it's a very tradeable contract, and it would have served the Bulls well to retain him until they figured out whether Gordon can play, and whether a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt is really going to work.

If nothing else, imo letting Crawford go without a suitable replacement all but guarantees Ben Gordon will not become the difference-making player the Bulls expected to get with a #3 pick--at least not for the Bulls. As seasoned as he is, he's still going to get thrown to the wolves this year and put in a position where it'll be next to impossible for him to succeed. It'll be too easy for the Bulls to point to all his flaws once his contract's up, and we'll go through the same rigamarole all over again.

Have a great summer, everybody.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*The chronology may be off in a couple places… but the ineptitude is still there..*

The summer of free agents was the big mistake for this team.

A great draft of Brand and Artest in the mid 1st.

Nice trade of Kukoc for the pick that became Crawford.

The full boats were ready. Benny the Bull was at the airport. The pitchers mound at Wrigley was open for TMAC.

Nothing.

Crappy team.

Miller was a nice signing.

But…. We have all this cap space. We have to do something!!!!

Mercer (BAD CONTRACT). Bad.

More losing.

We need to do something. We were supposed to get our superstar via the full boats! We need a superstar!!!

Trade our rookie of the year for a high school kid. TWIN TOWERS! One of them has to be a SUPERSTAR!

Erob signing (BAD CONTRACT)

Artest goes crazy over the losing. Mercer sucks and we can’t bench him. Have to play this stiff. Need to get rid of him. Contract so bad noone wants him. NEED A “SUPERSTAR”

Trade for Rose (BAD CONTRACT) and his disgusting contract. Need to dump Artest and Miller (nice players, contracts) to get rid of Mercer (BAD CONTRACT)

Marshall signing (nice player, nice contract)

Two picks in the worst draft ever (BAD LUCK). One pans out and one sucks.

#2 pick for the sure thing Williams. Thank god we didn’t get the #1 or else crazy Krause would pick that freak Ming. Crawford is clearly better. Motorcycle. (BAD LUCK)

Rose is a cancer. Can’t bench him. Need to play him. Can’t trade him cause no one wants that albatross of a contract. (Mercer part 2!) Have to take on Davis (BAD CONTRACT) and JYD (BAD CONTRACT) just to get rid of Rose… .and we have to dump a productive player (Marshall) at a nice contract just to get it done.

MORE LOSING MORE LOSING MORE LOSING.

The players are clearly lazy… even though the ones that were losing before (Brand, Miller, Artest) are flourishing on other teams. Yah right.

Curry is fat and does not care. (BAD LUCK, BAD ORGANIZATION).
Chandler has a bad back for the love of God (BAD LUCK) and seems to lack basic basketball skills (catching, shooting ball).

Crawford plays well and improves every year. Still young. This is the guy that needs to go immediately! Yah right.

So many BAD CONTRACTS. Davis. Erob. JYD.

Trade him and JYD (BAD CONTRACT) for absolute crap and some saved money for Uncle Jerry. 

It makes me sick.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

First off, I like our situation WAY WAY WAY better than the mess NY is in right now. NY can't even think about making a title run until they clean up their books, which will take another 5 years, and then will have to either attract a major FA or get extremely lucky in the draft.

The Bulls have not been very lucky in the draft during the rebuilding era sans Ron Artest (which they did not keep around long enough to properly evaluate), although he was shipped probably due to being a headcase in the locker room. Having the #1 in the Brand/Francis class was probably the worst other than having the #1 in the Kwame/Chandler class, and our only other top pick became motorcycle man Williams.

You could make a case that the Bulls were lucky with Crawford as well, but he was a second round pick that shot up to the first round because he hit what, 15 straight 3-pointers in a pre-draft workout. He is a fun guy to watch play, but I never felt that he actually made the Bulls better. He rarely threw a good pass (one that made a teammate have an easier shot). He usually would get that pass (or shot) off, and that was his main strength as a Bull. He was the only one who could create his own shot.

The pressure of losing for so long made Reinsdorf pull the deal for Rose. Trying to bring a semi-star onto the team that the team could build around and the fans could love in the interim. While Rose was productive, the Bulls found out that he wasn't the answer so they had to ship him because they realized that they weren't going to make a championship run before Rose's contract ended, and wanted to have the cap flexibility sooner rather than later.

This entire rebuilding process came from losing our 3 best players after our last championship, and one of the better coaches in the league, pretty much all at once. Our 6th man (Kukoc) became our number one option, and we were unable to attract any major FAs to this team. However, instead of standing pat and waiting for next year, the Bulls organization felt that we needed to do something with the money, and that something turned into Mercer and ERob. Brad Miller and Donyell Marshall have been our ONLY good acquisitions for this team since the championship era. Barry could be another name, but he really never gelled well with this team.

Don't even compare the current Bulls to the Lakers either. As soon as they acquired Shaq, everyone wanted to play for the Lakers. Who wants to play for a team completely rebuilding (ala Golden State)? We are FINALLY showing some signs of breaking out of that rebuilding phase with a core of new, young talent.

I think what has doomed us the past few years was the pressure to do something as the original poster mentioned. For once, the Bulls are standing pat, sticking to their guns and see what develops out of what we have. Heck, the best case scenerio is that we could sign a second tier FA, resign Curry and Chandler, and be a top team in the East NEXT year.

I, for one, am willing to wait for a change.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: The chronology may be off in a couple places… but the ineptitude is still there..*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The summer of free agents was the big mistake for this team.
> 
> A great draft of Brand and Artest in the mid 1st.
> ...


That about sums it up in a nutshell. I am sick too, I will continue to follow the Bulls but only because thats just what I do. I am very dissappointed with recent events though. This orginization might as well be owned by DOnald Sterling.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I did it to ask a question with the bulls deciding they weren't winning enough to justify paying JC


Removing JC was about changing the culture of the team, first and foremost.

Second,



> "It's not easy giving up a talent," Paxson said. "I know as well as anybody that Jamal's a talented player and has a bright future. *To commit long-term dollars for us right now, it was tough."*


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The Bulls 23 win total had nothing to do with JC not being retained.

Pax wants to build the team his way.

JC didn't fit.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I won't give up League Pass because I like the NBA too much, but I've done all I can economically to stop enabling this madness--no games at the UC when I'm in town on holidays or vacations, no trips to Bulls games at MSG or the Meadowlands or the Fleet Center or First Union Center, no Bulls gear for my 16-month-old, etc.
> 
> But I'm approaching the point where I'm going to have to cut my losses of time and energy, too. I am telling you right now that Bulls ownership looks at this team and its fans and has a hearty laugh at our expense (literally). They have got an immense cash cow that is rivalled only by the Yankees in terms of its year-in, year-out profitability. They ARE thinking short-term in that the overall value of the team plummets as we continue to stink (and the luster starts to wear off the UC; soon it'll be the NBA norm, not an exception), but keep in mind that to truly reap the benefits of franchise appreciation, one has to sell the franchise. I think the 30-40-50 million dollar operating profits are far more important to this group, particularly when there's no end to them in sight.
> ...


Would you mind bumping the "season is a wash" thread before you turn out the lights?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: The chronology may be off in a couple places… but the ineptitude is still there..*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> This orginization might as well be owned by DOnald Sterling.


Bingo. 

Unless Chandler, Curry, Deng or Gordon become superstars, this team is hosed for the forseeable future.

It does not look like Curry, Chandler or Deng will be this type of player.

Maybe Gordon.

We don't even have a 1st round pick next season.

If everyone progresses, it can be good.... but I just don't think this organization is providing the environment for this to happen. Maybe Skiles and Pax can create this, i don't know... but i'm not plunking down 2 Gs to watch it, that's for sure.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Removing JC was about changing the culture of the team, first and foremost.


And what culture is that?

The one that shows up to practice and plays every game?

The one that shows up to camp in shape?

The one that actually produces?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And what culture is that?
> ...


Thats what I always wonder when people say removing Jamal is part of "removing the losing culture". Just doesn't make amy sense to me. Then people will say that Jamal isn't a "team" player, despite the fact that he was the second leading assist man and constantly praised his teamates instead of himself.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> "removing the losing culture". Just doesn't make amy sense to me.


Same reason given for getting rid of Floyd. Cartwright. Krause.
Brand. Artest. Miller. Rose. 

A "fresh" start.

So... after this season and Gordon, Deng, Curry and Chandler lead us to a 15 win season, who's the first to go?

When Pax and Skiles get fired, whoever remains will be dumped for the next guy's "fresh" start.

How about this? Keep the talented players.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Same reason given for getting rid of Floyd. Cartwright. Krause.
> ...


Thats what I am saying. There is only ONE way to remove the losing culture and thats by winning. And if someone seriously believes the Bulls will have a better shot at winning without Crawford on the team they are sorely mistaken.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> IMO he'd trade those 6 rings for 1 White Sox one.


Hell, I'd do the same thing for a Palehose world series ring.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Wow, some of this and all of these other threads over Jamal?  Wouldn't JCBigSis be proud! You'd think we just traded Garnett for expiring contracts. 

There's some truth in both sides of the tale. Bulls ownership certainly isn't the greatest, its certainly not willing to win at all costs, but its also not as cheap as its being portrayed either. 

Both sides of this debate are trying to use their talking points to drive home their point. These discussions, the ones about ownership, Krause, the ones about the dynasty are all too similar to the political debate in this country. Nobody is gonna change their mind, they only see their side of the story and it all gets reduced to nothing more than rhetoric. 

It all makes for an interesting way to pass the time of day, but we can all probably count on one hand the number of times we've seen somebody on this board truly change their mind on a subject where opinion matters.

Some already see the departures of Curry, Chandler, Gordon, Deng and Hinrich. I guess I'm not quite that cynical. It seems like we far too frequently fail to look at the causal part of the cause and action relationship, especially in hindsight. There have been reasons for making the steps we've made and I don't recall too many that were rejected by the complete fan base. So in most cases, at least most of the fan base seemed to agree with the action based on the cause. You can claim the fan base is intellectually deficient, easily duped or whatever, but I think its just a difference of opinion. There are no bandwagoners on these boards just real Bulls fans with differences of opinions, perspectives and tastes.

Speaking of taste, sure, I still prefer a stiff cherry kool-aid when I'm watching the Bulls, but I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

So what is your side of the story?

As a Bulls fan, why should I be happy about trading a talented player that produces for absolutely NOTHING?

Please explain.

I really, really want to remain a Bulls fan, but I have a hard time supporting a team that dumps assets for nothing.


> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Wow, some of this and all of these other threads over Jamal?  Wouldn't JCBigSis be proud! You'd think we just traded Garnett for expiring contracts.
> 
> There's some truth in both sides of the tale. Bulls ownership certainly isn't the greatest, its certainly not willing to win at all costs, but its also not as cheap as its being portrayed either.
> ...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I suppose I'll wait to see what happens next. 

Why Jamal would want to leave has been discussed at length and has its legions of supporters, but those who would have Jamal leave are probably just as significant in numbers. Neither side owns the argument. For me, I think its obvious Jamal didn't buy into what Paxson was selling in terms of how he'd be used, etc. So, I wasn't as hell bent on keeping him.

I also don't accept the theory that this money goes straight into Reinsdorf's pockets. Furthermore, I won't sign onto the notion that Jamal and a $60M contract is a tradeable asset. I'm sure once upon a time that sort of thinking could have been applied to ERob and his $30M contract. He doesn't look very tradeable to me. 

If Paxson privately has such a low opinion of Jamal, maybe he sees dumping him for expiring contracts as a real coup. I don't know that Jamal was a great fit here so I don't really care what the reason was as much as what is next. You've got a group of expiring contracts and I'd like to see him do something with them. We have some great minds here that come up with some outstanding trades. You've got some assets on the roster and you've got some significant expiring contracts now. Perhaps some combination is now worthy of prying away a legitimate talent from another team. If they're intent on dealing Curry, maybe Curry, some expiring contracts and filler for Gasol and Wells and filler would now be doable. 

Sure its good stress relief to vent based on this trade going down, but isn't it more interesting to start discussing what we should do next? Only a certain percentage of the NBA may be interested in any non-superstar. The whole NBA likes a good expiring contract.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I won't give up League Pass because I like the NBA too much, but I've done all I can economically to stop enabling this madness--no games at the UC when I'm in town on holidays or vacations, no trips to Bulls games at MSG or the Meadowlands or the Fleet Center or First Union Center, no Bulls gear for my 16-month-old, etc.
> 
> But I'm approaching the point where I'm going to have to cut my losses of time and energy, too. I am telling you right now that Bulls ownership looks at this team and its fans and has a hearty laugh at our expense (literally). They have got an immense cash cow that is rivalled only by the Yankees in terms of its year-in, year-out profitability. They ARE thinking short-term in that the overall value of the team plummets as we continue to stink (and the luster starts to wear off the UC; soon it'll be the NBA norm, not an exception), but keep in mind that to truly reap the benefits of franchise appreciation, one has to sell the franchise. I think the 30-40-50 million dollar operating profits are far more important to this group, particularly when there's no end to them in sight.
> ...


Fabulous post, ScottMay. Thank you.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I couldn't agree more that Crawford wasn't a good long-term fit here, and $56 million over 7 years is too much. But it's a very tradeable contract, and it would have served the Bulls well to retain him until they figured out whether Gordon can play, and whether a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt is really going to work.


If Crawford is signing a contract that is TOO MUCH, how is this an easily tradeable contract?

Pax is giving the team some potential cap room down the line esp. if Curry and Chandler don't take the next step forward.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

J797: I think it's too much in relation to what Jamal's worth, but it's not an unmovable deal like, say, Allan Houston's.

If the Bulls had signed him for that much, I have no question they would have been able to move him a year or two down the road, if need be, and without much else of a premium, to a team seeking a point guard.

What they could get in return is another story, but I'm certain he wouldn't have been stuck here.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And what culture is that?
> ...



Jamal was not a hardworker.

He wasn't an above average competitor either.

And he didn't believe in defense.

Don't get me wrong...as I've always said: He's a talented player who can be dazzling at times.

But he's not going to a cornerstone here. 55 million is a rough number at this point in the Bulls rebuilding.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jamal HAS ALWAYS been a hardworker. He came back from his ACL early and was cited as the most frequent Berto workout person next to Hassell last season. The claims that he isn't a hardworker are just bogus

I think he was an above average competetor on a team that isn't especially competetive.

He "believes" in defense IMO, he just has trouble fighthing through screens. He actually did a nice job of playing the passing lanes and playing zone defense. I expect that once he has added some more strength he will be better at fighting through screens and thus become a better overall defender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> But he's not going to a cornerstone here. 55 million is a rough number at this point in the Bulls rebuilding.


Didn't we have all the cards? Why did we HAVE to sign him for 55 mil?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Jamal HAS ALWAYS been a hardworker. He came back from his ACL early and was cited as the most frequent Berto workout person next to Hassell last season. The claims that he isn't a hardworker are just bogus


Thats a JOKE.

Who epitimizes hardwork and competitiveness on the Bulls?

Hinrich. In NO-ONES eyes could Jamal even begin to approach having the kind of character that Hinrich had/has.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Linton Johnson is a hard worker.

Linton Johnson is an above average competitor

Linton Johnson tries to play defense.

Linton Johnson sucks.

How many of the above are true about SHAQ?
Iverson?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats a JOKE.
> ...



Yes, Hinrich IS a hard worker TOO. But denying that Jamal is a hardworker is a JOKE IMO. I mean, like I said, the kid battled back from ACL injury EARLY. The reports are out there that clearly state that Jamal was the second most frequent person working out at the Berto last preseason besides Hassell. Jamal used to go work out with Gary Payton summers before that. I think Jamal is more finesse and doesn't LOOK like he has the intensity that Kirk does, still, by all accounts he has worked just about as hard or harder than any other Bull.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> _*
> All around, top to bottom, with all the things he does for the team, he has been our most consistent and best player. We're a totally different team when Kirk sits down. His defensive effort is there every minute of every game and every minute of every practice.*_


--Scott Skiles


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> --Scott Skiles


I watched an awful lot of Bulls games last year, and while solid, Hinrich was not winning games for this team by any stretch. 

I love the effort. I like Dupree's and Johnson's effort as well. Effort does not cut it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I mean, like I said, the kid battled back from ACL injury EARLY.


Earlier than what? I don't think this means much any more...Fizer did the same thing and a lot of pro athletes are finishing earlier than the doctors say they should. I doubt it's as much about hard work as it is about supremely tuned bodies (compared to the normal man--who the "how long should it take?"chart is based on) and ever improving medical science.




> The reports are out there that clearly state that Jamal was the second most frequent person working out at the Berto last preseason besides Hassell. Jamal used to go work out with Gary Payton summers before that. I think Jamal is more finesse and doesn't LOOK like he has the intensity that Kirk does, still, by all accounts he has worked just about as hard or harder than any other Bull.


Not by the organization. Look up...

And that hardwork was missing where he needed it the most...on the defensive end. Rarely here of a player being a hardworker without mention of his defensive play. You're just quoting off-season stuff...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I watched an awful lot of Bulls games last year, and while solid, Hinrich was not winning games for this team by any stretch.
> ...


He was certainly doing his part...when some more talented players come along the winning will come...



> Fighting to gain back his conditioning and the 15 pounds he lost while on the Injured List, Hinrich averaged 4.1 assists per game and 4.14 turnovers per game through his first 7 appearances.
> 
> Through his final 68 appearances, he averaged an impressive 7.2 apg (486) and limited his mistakes to just 2.56 tpg (174).
> --
> ...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> We're a totally different team when Kirk sits down.
> - Scott Skiles


Skiles is right on this point, and it can be demonstrated by analyzing how the Bulls did when Hinrich was on the floor and when he was not.

However, on this point, the same thing is true for Crawford. The Bulls were a much worse team when he sat down. In fact, their play suffered a little more than when Hinrich sat down (once you account for the other players on the floor).

The reason many of us prefer Hinrich to Crawford is not about production, since both players had about the same effect on the Bulls while on the floor. The difference lies in personal tastes for certain types of players. I too find Hinrich's production more appealing than Crawford's, but deep down I also realize that if winning is what I really care about, then these two guys were equally important to the Bulls last season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Skiles is right on this point, and it can be demonstrated by analyzing how the Bulls did when Hinrich was on the floor and when he was not.
> 
> However, on this point, the same thing is true for Crawford. The Bulls were a much worse team when he sat down. In fact, their play suffered a little more than when Hinrich sat down (once you account for the other players on the floor).


And yet he was never able to pull the Bulls up into the winning team strata.

KH's position is as an enabler. Offensively, he's the third or fouth option out there. The spotlight was on Jamal most of the time to get it done offensively---and mostly what we got from it was a nice statline by his name and a L in the W/L column.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I watched an awful lot of Bulls games last year, and while solid, Hinrich was not winning games for this team by any stretch.
> ...


So are you suggesting by extension that Hinrich doesn't cut it? Yes, he didn't single-handedly win any games. Perhaps Jamal won a few that way. Face it, neither player is the type that you count on for that.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting by extension that Hinrich doesn't cut it?


:laugh: 

Good question. Judging by the "trade hinrich--keep Jamal and Gordon" threads floating around earlier...I'd think we know the answer already.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> And yet he was never able to pull the Bulls up into the winning team strata.
> 
> KH's position is as an enabler. Offensively, he's the third or fouth option out there. The spotlight was on Jamal most of the time to get it done offensively---and mostly what we got from it was a nice statline by his name and a L in the W/L column.


Who is the "he" in your first sentence? Don't you realize it could just as easily be Hinrich as Crawford?

You can scapegoat Crawford and sell Hinrich short, but the fact of the matter is that both players were "never able to pull the Bulls up into the winning team strata." Both players helped the Bulls, but neither could turn the Bulls into winners. They should share equally in any credit and any scapegoating.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> They should share equally in any credit and any scapegoating.


You've got to be kidding.


You've got to be kidding.


You've got to be kidding.


You've got to be kidding.


KH had a great season for a rookie PG. He literally did all that could reasonably be expected of him. His one job was to the run the offense and 7 assists a game says that he did it very well. He was 7th in the league in that catagory.

As the focus of the offense most of the time, Jamal was nowhere near seventh in the league. He'd have signed a max contract a while ago if he was.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Who is the "he" in your first sentence? Don't you realize it could just as easily be Hinrich as Crawford?
> 
> You can scapegoat Crawford and sell Hinrich short, but the fact of the matter is that both players were "never able to pull the Bulls up into the winning team strata." Both players helped the Bulls, but neither could turn the Bulls into winners. They should share equally in any credit and any scapegoating.


Essentially I think it boils down to this. Hinrich gets praise around here because he's seen as a team guy. He does what he's told, he gives maximum effort, he doesn't have conflicts with players or management AND he is a player. Jamal has had problems with every coach he's played under, he's been benched time and time again, he's not seen as giving maximum effort (less effort on defensive end vs. offensive end, doesn't take charges, won't dive for loose balls), he doesn't always do as he's been told/taught BUT he is a player. 

Some posters who like Jamal resent the treatment/perceived pass Hinrich gets which means they berate him even if they essentially think this is the kind of guy they want on their team. Posters who don't like Crawford tend to give him too much blame and too little credit for what he did bring to the table. All players have strengths and all of them have weaknesses.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Shoot. If Hinrich had been on the market this summer, he'd have gotten feelers from more than one team and tepid interest from another...

When GM's look at Jamal, the first thought they think is "Flawed".

Talented, but flawed.

We all know Hinrich is going to improve and be one of the best at his position when he enters his prime. 

You can't make that assumption about Jamal.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> KH had a great season for a rookie PG. He literally did all that could reasonably be expected of him. His one job was to the run the offense and 7 assists a game says that he did it very well. He was 7th in the league in that catagory.


You are absolutely right. Kirk had a great rookie season. The problem here is that comparing Kirk and Jamal is really like comparing apples and oranges. Kirk plays like a pass first true point guard who on defense pressures the ball. Jamal plays like a shoot first point guard who on defense lays off his man. 

But since we're talking stats and ratings, how about those games where Jamal sat the entire fourth quarter or second half? Thats a good bit of playing time where Hinrich was on the floor with the NBDL crew right? Man, thats gotta hurt the stats. Makes a lot fewer games where Hinrich had his backcourt mate to take the pressure off or add to our competitiveness, no? How many games and how much playing time did Jamal have where he didn't have Hinrich on the floor? I'd be interested to see these stats and ratings as well. I don't want this to become a ripping on one over the other, I'm just pointing out that one guy was always there for the other but not necessarily vice versa.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting by extension that Hinrich doesn't cut it? Yes, he didn't single-handedly win any games. Perhaps Jamal won a few that way. Face it, neither player is the type that you count on for that.


No... i like Hinrich. He's just not a star by any stretch. He'll be a solid, slighty above-average player in the league.

I'm upset about trading assets for nothing. This isn't hinirch vs jamal. I want both on the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> ...


This is what I don't get.

They are roughly the same age.

Hinrich has far more competitive basketball experience.

Both were having their first years of getting consistent, heavy NBA minutes.

Jamal still has plenty of upside. To trade him for nothing is foolish.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> Kirk plays like a pass first true point guard who on defense pressures the ball. Jamal plays like a shoot first point guard who on defense lays off his man.



See any problem with that?



> But since we're talking stats and ratings, how about those games where Jamal sat the entire fourth quarter or second half?


Were we winning or losing at that point iin most of the games?




> Thats a good bit of playing time where Hinrich was on the floor with the NBDL crew right?


Absolutely. Amazing that he was able to keep that apg number up with inferior players like that. Probably where the majority of his own points came from.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> No... i like Hinrich. He's just not a star by any stretch. He'll be a solid, slighty above-average player in the league.


He's a top ten PG if you go by the stat most PG's are asked to produce.

Thats better than above-average.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> We all know Hinrich is going to improve and be one of the best at his position when he enters his prime.
> ...


Why not?

Jamal and Kirk are of almost equal age and Jamal outproduces Kirk.

Why is Jamal a known quantity and Kirk has all this upside?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> He "believes" in defense IMO, he just has trouble fighthing through screens.


Hell, I "believe" in D, too. Pax is wise not to throw $55M my way, either.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Jamal still has plenty of upside.


He needs to improve his shooting percentage...either by working on his jumper or figuring out a way to drive and get his points at the line instead of taking so many low percentage shots. He was horribly inefficient to be the offensive spotlight a lot of the time.

He also, to quote someone earlier, needs to stop giving "less effort on defensive end vs. offensive end, doesn't take charges, won't dive for loose balls"


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Hell, I "believe" in D, too. Pax is wise not to throw $55M my way, either.



:laugh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> But I'm approaching the point where I'm going to have to cut my losses of time and energy, too. I am telling you right now that Bulls ownership looks at this team and its fans and has a hearty laugh at our expense (literally). They have got an immense cash cow that is rivalled only by the Yankees in terms of its year-in, year-out profitability. They ARE thinking short-term in that the overall value of the team plummets as we continue to stink...


I can certainly relate to this. I would have been pissed if we hadn't used the MLE this year.

Question: How involved was Reinsdorf in this decision? Did Pax and Skiles really want Crawford back?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He's a top ten PG if you go by the stat most PG's are asked to produce.
> ...




More like just the ones you are deciding to look at. 

Its certainly not points and FG%. (or wins and losses)

Anyway... I don't really care about Hinrich. He's good. I don't want to talk about him anymore.

Statistically, Jamal is better than Kirk. So... its like we are trading a player of Kirk's caliber for nothing.

Its the fact we are getting nothing for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He needs to improve his shooting percentage...either by working on his jumper or figuring out a way to drive and get his points at the line instead of taking so many low percentage shots. He was horribly inefficient to be the offensive spotlight a lot of the time.
> ...


Right. He's not a perfect player. There is no such thing on the Bulls. He's one of our best players and to get NOTHING for him is a crime.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Jamal outproduces Kirk.




:laugh:




> Why is Jamal a known quantity and Kirk has all this upside?





> less effort on defensive end vs. offensive end, doesn't take charges, won't dive for loose balls


Plus a low percentage, inefficient scorer.

But honestly...lets compare them. Give me the reasonable flaws that exist in Hinrichs game.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> He's one of our best players and to get NOTHING for him is a crime.


Thats not hard. After you get past Hinrich who's left?

(I'm going by last years roster)


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Shoot. If Hinrich had been on the market this summer, he'd have gotten feelers from more than one team and tepid interest from another...
> 
> When GM's look at Jamal, the first thought they think is "Flawed".
> ...


I hate it when people talk about what GMs think. I have spoken or had e-mail exchanges with several GMs around the League, and I would not presume to know what they think about something this specific.

And I still stand by my statement that both players were "never able to pull the Bulls up into the winning team strata." Both players helped the Bulls, but neither could turn the Bulls into winners. They should share equally in any credit and any scapegoating.

But now you bring up a different point. And it is a good one. Last year's production is under the bridge, but which player is going to improve more?

While I think an argument can be made for Crawford along these lines, here is where I think Hinrich's reported work ethic gives him an advantage over Crawford. Also, this work ethic might have a positive effect on other players work ethics, which would be a positive benefit to the Bulls that would not show up in any of Hinrich's statistics. And finally, if the Bulls ever improve my guess is that Hinrich's game would mesh better on a better team. That is less to me about Crawford's game.

All of that said, for this upcoming season I fear that Crawford could have been extremely valuable as a lightning rod that allowed Gordon to find his NBA game in a reasonable time frame. As it is, I think we are setting the kid up to fail.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats not hard. After you get past Hinrich who's left?
> ...


I have to go to a meeting now... but here's a start

http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=eff&lg=n&yr=2003

Craw is 74... Hinrich is 80.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I hate it when people talk about what GMs think.


Look at their actions and their words. What they think becomes readily apparent.



> I have spoken or had e-mail exchanges with several GMs around the League







> And I still stand by my statement that both players were "never able to pull the Bulls up into the winning team strata."
> 
> 
> > Hinrichs role is as an enabler. He's not a superstar, he's not a centerpiece. He's there to make the best offensive player better. And regardless of who that was, he found 'em. He did his job superbly. The same job with a better offensive player will lead to a lot of wins for Chicago...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> All of that said, for this upcoming season I fear that Crawford could have been extremely valuable as a lightning rod that allowed Gordon to find his NBA game in a reasonable time frame. As it is, I think we are setting the kid up to fail.


Did MJ need Reggie Theus around to show what he has? Did Craw help Hinrich adapt?

Paxson *must* sign some sembelence of a SG. But if Gordon starts off the year behind Cheney or Crawford, will it really effect him that much? 

Seems like Paxson would understand this best of all. He has been studying Gordon on a daily basis for more than a month. Clearly, this has been top of mind thought for Paxson for quite some time.

If people are upset b/c they feel Craw will improve significantly and could be a core part of the future, much improved Bulls, I understand this.

But to sign a guy to a 7 yr contract for big bucks b/c he will help with some else's transition or can always be traded later???? This does not make much sense to me.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I have to go to a meeting now... but here's a start
> ...


I asked for the flaws in his game, not stats.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at their actions and their words. What they think becomes readily apparent.
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I asked for the flaws in his game, not stats.


I think Hinrich is a solid point guard. I have few problems with him. He's not going to win a lot of games for us, but can be a solid player on a winning team someday. If he can finish his drives and shoot for a higher percentage, he could be Steve Nash.

Crawford produced more last season.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Did Craw help Hinrich adapt?


Had Crawford not been around, Hinrich probably would have had to shoot a lot more. He may have ended up with a shooting percentage well below 40 percent. Heck, he was pretty demoralized as it was last season. I am not sure we would want to go further down that road, especially given that he would have been more of a scapegoat for the Bulls' lack of success.



> Paxson *must* sign some sembelence of a SG. But if Gordon starts off the year behind Cheney or Crawford, will it really effect him that much?


I think that losing and being vilified in the press can have negative effects on players, especially young players. So yes, I think have Crawford around could have protected him from some of this in a way that having Cheaney around won't. I also hate the idea of throwing away another season. I think that also is demoralizing to players. 



> Seems like Paxson would understand this best of all. He has been studying Gordon on a daily basis for more than a month. Clearly, this has been top of mind thought for Paxson for quite some time.


Yes, but that argument can be made about practically every decision any GM makes. 



> If people are upset b/c they feel Craw will improve significantly and could be a core part of the future, much improved Bulls, I understand this.
> 
> But to sign a guy to a 7 yr contract for big bucks b/c he will help with some else's transition or can always be traded later???? This does not make much sense to me.


It isn't an either/or. There can be lots of reasons why it makes sense to keep a player. GMs like Jerry West never waste opportunities to add or retain talent. Despite not getting much of anything through the draft, he has slowly but surely molded together talented but flawed basketball players into a very deep winning team. At some point in the future when a GM gets disgusted with his team and starts dismantling, West's depth is likely to allow him to turn that deep and talented team into a true contender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I asked for the flaws in his game, not stats.


Here's a few more. Approximate Value.

http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=av&lg=n&yr=2003

Craw is 66, Hinrich is 81

How about versatility index?

http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=vi&lg=n&yr=2003

Craw is 44, Hinrich is 48.

If you want the defs, go here

http://www.basketballreference.com/about/aboutstats.htm

Sorry if you don't like stats... but often I find them better than conjecture and opinion.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I find them better than conjecture and opinion.


:laugh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> It isn't an either/or. There can be lots of reasons why it makes sense to keep a player. GMs like Jerry West never waste opportunities to add or retain talent. Despite not getting much of anything through the draft, he has slowly but surely molded together talented but flawed basketball players into a very deep winning team. At some point in the future when a GM gets disgusted with his team and starts dismantling, West's depth is likely to allow him to turn that deep and talented team into a true contender.


At this point in time, the Kiki "tear-it-down" model has worked just as well as the West "piece by piece" model. 

For that matter, the Bucks "less talent, harder workers" model might be something Pax is trying to emulate as well.


------------------------------------------------
Did you see the allegation that Curry's secretely upset in Banks article b/c JC earned a nice $55M contract with the Bulls? 

Just like one benefit of the Rose trade was to see what JC's got. One benifit of this trade may be to help Curry better understand what it's going to take to get a nice contract from the Bulls. Bring it on big man!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> At this point in time, the Kiki "tear-it-down" model has worked just as well as the West "piece by piece" model.


Yes, but while Kiki was tearing down, he was acquiring assets like Nene and future first round draft picks.

I would trade Curry for Nene and Lenard in a heartbeat. That would be an absolutely wonderful trade for the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> At this point in time, the Kiki "tear-it-down" model has worked just as well as the West "piece by piece" model.


Right... and it only works if you draft a Melo and can get a Miller and Martin to want to play for your team.

The Bulls have purchased many lotto tickets, but never hit the jackpot.

The Deng pick trade is looking even more foolish due to our expected suckiness this season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The Deng pick trade is looking even more foolish due to our expected suckiness this season.


Why?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Yes, but while Kiki was tearing down, he was acquiring assets like Nene and future first round draft picks.


And Paxson has added Hinrich, Gordan and Deng, no?

I will say that Pax has taken a much more balanced approach than a complete tear down.

I am sure Pax would argue it's more of a character rebuild than a salary teardown.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> And Paxson has added Hinrich, Gordan and Deng, no?
> 
> I will say that Pax has taken a much more balanced approach than a complete tear down.
> ...


I was talking about future assets added through trades. Frank Williams appears to be our only possibility there. Actually with Williams, I wonder if we might see Hinrich, Gordon, and Williams get most of the minutes at PG and SG. That might be a silver lining out of this trade.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> There is a lot of evidence to say that the bulls players have bought into that they are fighting each other for a piece of the pie. For instance when anyone asks hassell or hoiberg whats the big difference between the bulls and the wolves both trent and fred say its the encouragement they have from their teammates. In that the teammates on the wolves tell them to keep shooting and they apreciate the things they do on the floor.
> 
> Thats not the case on the bulls where everyone is on the clock to make a huge impact before their rookie contract is up. where everyone wants to play and thats just the end of it. it was jay vs. jamal. its eddie vs.trent vs.fred , and marcus vs tyson vs. donyell too many players and not enough defined roles because everyone is clamoring to be number 1 and it hasn't changed much this year with scottie kendall , lint, and dupree .Nobody is secure so no one can just think of team . Outside of curry and kirk is there a single player on the team who is assured of coming back next season that the bulls wouldn't deal in a heartbeat for a cap friendly player?
> ...


Grinch 

On this point I am in complete agreement with you 300% 

Stack and Rack without clear definition is a sure fire way to kill chemistry and stay down the hole 

Its never been a question of talent ... just whether that talent is mature and whethr there is definition and balance 

I have always thought it is more a structuralist issue that resides in Management and has been influenced in a Top Down way ..


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Grinch
> ...


in some respects i can see what the knicks have accomplished by doing the JC trade , but I also dont think it outweighed what they lost in talent and the damage they have done to gordon's development by taking away his safety net . 

they brought in some players who are vets and know their roles , but they also brought in 6'3 player who will be a definite problem in the sense he could easily make a case to take gordon's time and possibly move kirk to the 2 guard(which i've always thought was for the better anyway) , in frank williams.

but F williams is no safety net he is a reason for scorn , if it were JC ben off the bench could be accepted , but if williams put him there gordon would be seen as a bust. and it wouldn't matter how well williams is playing for this to occur.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Does anyone feeled fooled yet?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'll admit it. Yes.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Nope I saw this coming all along.


----------

