# Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas/TT Waived by Bulls (merged)



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

The guy clearly doesn't want to do what it takes to be part of a winning basketball team. There is obviously more to the story about what went on between him and the team that is not being made public (just as there was more to the Ron Artest situation that was not made public, and more to the Frank Thomas situation that was not made public, etc.) Paxskiles bashers here are so quick to criticize management when dirty laundry is aired, and yet they can't seem to take a situation at face value when the dirty laundry is kept in house.

It seems clear to me. Why on earth would the Bulls willingly pay a man $14 million dollars (or whatever it is) to stay away from the team without very good reason? Why would they keep a talented player, one who could potentially help the team win games, from playing for no good reason? Simply out of spite? I don't think so. From everything I've read, the guy has been a negative influence on every team he's played. Haven't ex-teammates in Milwaukee and New York have indicated there were no tears shed upon his departure?

I believe upon his arrival in Chicago, expectations were laid out and Thomas chose not to abide by them. That left the Bulls little choice in the matter other than to tell him to stay away.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Kneepad said:


> It seems clear to me. Why on earth would the Bulls willingly pay a man $14 million dollars (or whatever it is) to stay away from the team without very good reason? Why would they keep a talented player, one who could potentially help the team win games, from playing for no good reason? .


Because the Bulls are so addicted to jib that they persue it at the expense of winning. Paxson and Skiles are basically junkies.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

If he really is that bad a guy, why are successful franchises like the Spurs and Heat lining up to sign him.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> If he really is that bad a guy, why are successful franchises like the Spurs and Heat lining up to sign him.


Maybe because they both have veteran, experienced leadership and aren't worried about keeping Tim Thomas in-line, or having his behavior "poison" the locker room full of young players. Novel idea, huh?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

As a wise man once said, the title of this thread is an exaggeration at best, and a fabrication at worst. 

In all seriousness, I don't see much "setting the record straight" here. Insinuating that something dark and dirty happened behind the scenes isn't really getting to the heart of the matter -- it's rank, baseless speculation, actually. And whether or not TT was beloved or hated by his previous teams is of little relevance. 

I don't disagree with you that expectations were laid out for TT when he came to Chicago and that they were not met. The real argument is the nature of the expectations. Whatever they were, several teams that are chasing a championship -- the Spurs, the Heat, the Nets, etc. -- are unfazed by TT's not meeting them. That speaks volumes.

And from what I can tell, the Bulls never submitted a motion to have TT's contract nullified, which is what would have been the expected and appropriate course of action if TT truly failed to meet the standards laid out by his contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Frankensteiner said:


> Maybe because they both have veteran, experienced leadership and aren't worried about keeping Tim Thomas in-line, or having his behavior "poison" the locker room full of young players. Novel idea, huh?


Our jib must be pretty weak if Tim Thomas, the guy with all the playoff experience, would poison our young players.

I think these grown men are made of sterner stuff than you give them credit for.

You are right though. Those successful teams tend to focus on doing what it takes to win basketaball games. Not on keeping the jib crystal clear and doing things "the right way."


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

None of us knows exactly what went down so all this is just speculation prejudiced by our previously held opinions of Pax/Skiles and is therefore basically worthless.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Frankensteiner said:


> Maybe because they both have veteran, experienced leadership and aren't worried about keeping Tim Thomas in-line, or having his behavior "poison" the locker room full of young players. Novel idea, huh?



It's not even that. Those teams see fresh legs. They see a body. They see a player playing for a contract.

They see a _can't lose_ proposition. He acts up, he's outta here. 

Tim Thomas wouldn't/won't get any burn in the playoffs with the Spurs. He'd be end of the season fodder for resting the regulars.

Any team holding their breath waiting for the Bulls to release Tim Thomas doesn't really think much of their teams playoff chances come springtime.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Our jib must be pretty weak if Tim Thomas, the guy with all the playoff experience, would poison our young players.
> 
> I think these grown men are made of sterner stuff than you give them credit for.


The notion that our players are jib-freaks with the sole purpose of running through a brick wall while saying "yessir" is a complete and total exaggeration, imo. But I understand it's easier to attack an exaggeration than it is to objectively evaluate a team. They're smart players who seem to play hard, yeah, but they're not finished products at this point. It's better they not pick up any bad habits from the Tim Thomas school of whining.



> You are right though. Those successful teams tend to focus on doing what it takes to win basketaball games.


Exactly, that's why having Tim Thomas around would be a bad idea for the Bulls. He would help the team lose more in the long-run. So in that sense, Paxson is following the model of a successful team and establishing a solid foundation.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> If he really is that bad a guy, why are successful franchises like the Spurs and Heat lining up to sign him.


Links?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ScottMay said:


> I don't disagree with you that expectations were laid out for TT when he came to Chicago and that they were not met. The real argument is the nature of the expectations. Whatever they were, several teams that are chasing a championship -- the Spurs, the Heat, the Nets, etc. -- are unfazed by TT's not meeting them. That speaks volumes.


Yes, it does speak volumes, but not in the way you'd like it to. Those three teams you cited have zero need for a guy like Tim Thomas. They'e all teams that would like to win the title here and now. If a guy like Thomas can give them a few points in a playoff game, then great. If not, nothing is lost. He'll never be a large part of the rotation for either the Spurs, the Nets or the Heat. Isn't it interesting that if Tim Thomas is such a talented difference maker, then why aren't teams like the Jazz, Kings, Celtics, Rockets and the like clamouring for his services? These are teams that could really use such a difference-maker to vault them into the playoffs. I mean, hell, the guy will basically be playing for free. So, why does it seem like only _some_ of the elite teams have an interest in this guy? Why not the mavs or the Suns?

Seems like your speaking volumes is nothing much more than Crib Notes for a Dick and Jane book.




> And from what I can tell, the Bulls never submitted a motion to have TT's contract nullified, which is what would have been the expected and appropriate course of action if TT truly failed to meet the standards laid out by his contract.


This is silly and baseless. Trying to nullify his contract was/isn't any kind of an issue. Sure he's lived up to the letter of his contract. When's the last time an NBA players contract was voided? Give me a break. Thomas didn't do whatever his employer told him to do and so was sent home. Since he didn't violate the terms of the contract, he's still getting paid. What, exactly is your point here other than to, once again, throw stuff out there that has no basis in reality.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ScottMay said:


> As a wise man once said, the title of this thread is an exaggeration at best, and a fabrication at worst.
> 
> In all seriousness, I don't see much "setting the record straight" here. Insinuating that something dark and dirty happened behind the scenes isn't really getting to the heart of the matter -- it's rank, baseless speculation, actually.


That's fair. I guess by titleing the thread as I did, I didnt' intend to imply that I had the definitive answer, but rather that I hoped to the bottom of the matter through discussion. I see all the usual agendas have come out in force, however.



> I don't disagree with you that expectations were laid out for TT when he came to Chicago and that they were not met. The real argument is the nature of the expectations. Whatever they were, several teams that are chasing a championship -- the Spurs, the Heat, the Nets, etc. -- are unfazed by TT's not meeting them. That speaks volumes.


I have seen one article indicating interest from the Nets, and the interest was solely from players, not a single indication that management had any interest in signing TT. I have yet to find any indication that the Heat or Spurs are interested. If you have links, by all means provide them.



> And from what I can tell, the Bulls never submitted a motion to have TT's contract nullified, which is what would have been the expected and appropriate course of action if TT truly failed to meet the standards laid out by his contract.


Says who? You mean legally speaking? Both sides are living up to their ends of the contract as far as I know. I see nothing different in how the Bulls are handling this situation from how the Pacers handled Artest before they were able to trade him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Kneepad said:


> Links?



http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/39351/20060225/four_teams_are_interested_in_thomas/


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

i've seen some things out of the new jersey papers that suggest there are teams interested in timmy but with no actual quotes from the management of those teams.

and no team wants to TRADE for timmy. keep that in mind. 

makes me think timmy has a really good agent and press person. i mean he's got those jersey beat writers just where he wants them!

some people are so blinded by their pax/skiles hate, they can't see a reasonable argument like the one you present, kneepad. way to go!


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/39351/20060225/four_teams_are_interested_in_thomas/


Yes, I saw that one that you proudly trumpeted in your "Four teams interested in Tim Thomas" thread.

Problem is, according to the article, it's Vince Carter, not Nets management, that appears to have interest in Thomas. And, again according to the article, the Nets can offer only a minimum contract. Are you taking bets that Thomas is willing to sign with the New Jersey Nets for that?

As for the rest, I'm afraid I can't lend much credibility to casual statements by one writer that these other teams have interest, especially after the conclusion he drew about the Nets having interest. It would help if at least one other writer anywhere in the country had substantiated this (I did a fairly extensive search on Google News and came up empty).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Kneepad said:


> That's fair. I guess by titleing the thread as I did, I didnt' intend to imply that I had the definitive answer, but rather that I hoped to the bottom of the matter through discussion. I see all the usual agendas have come out in force, however.


You'd expect something else?!




> I have seen one article indicating interest from the Nets, and the interest was solely from players, not a single indication that management had any interest in signing TT. I have yet to find any indication that the Heat or Spurs are interested. If you have links, by all means provide them.


The media reports are below. No, there're no definitive statements by GMs expressing an interest in Thomas. But this is all we have to work with. As you said in your initial post, sometimes it's not a good idea for a team to lay all its cards on the table.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...feb24,1,624283.story?coll=cs-basketball-print



> The Spurs and Nets are said to be interested in Thomas . . .


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/3685961.html



> The Spurs might pick up Tim Thomas if the Bulls finally buy out his contract.


http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060226/SPORTS/602260570/1002/SPORTS



> Tim Thomas and the Chicago Bulls are expected to reach a buyout agreement by early this week. Once the 6-10 forward clears waivers, he'll be able to choose among the San Antonio Spurs, the Philadelphia 76ers and the Nets for his next team.


http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA022206.8C.BKNspurs.notebook.12d9861e.html



> If the Spurs are going to make any roster changes, they appear more likely to sign a player instead of trade for one.
> 
> With the NBA's trade deadline arriving at 2 p.m. Thursday, the Spurs don't have any deals imminent, though they continue to explore their options. Among the possibilities is signing swingman Tim Thomas if Chicago decides to waive him.
> 
> Spurs assistant coach Don Newman has a good relationship with Thomas from their days in Milwaukee. Spurs coach Gregg Popovich also had tried to sign Thomas before he re-signed with the Bucks.


http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr...lRUV5eTY4ODYyMjMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2



> The Bulls are working on a buyout, but general manager John Paxson said he doesn't want Thomas go to an East team that Chicago is chasing. The Nets, Heat and Sixers are East teams with an interest along with the Spurs out west.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2342311



> The Philadelphia 76ers want Tim Thomas, too, and they cleared Lee Nailon off their roster to provide some financial flexibility if they ever get a chance to make a push for the former Villanova star.
> 
> The 76ers dealt Nailon and their 2006 second-round pick to Cleveland on Thursday, getting back the Cavs' much-traveled 2006 second-round pick.
> 
> ...


http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/sports/13790423.htm



> There was also reason to believe that King was waiting to see whether the Chicago Bulls might waive or buy out former Sixer Tim Thomas by the Feb. 23 trading deadline. If that were to happen, a source confirmed that King might consider signing him to a minimum-salary contract.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



mizenkay said:


> i mean he's got those jersey beat writers just where he wants them!


Apparently the massive Tim Thomas media machine is capable of stretching its tentacles all the way to Houston and San Antonio, too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

when i look at the teams that have interest in TT i think the guy has value , i see teams that want a good spark off the bench and a former 6th man winner in his prime could possibly fit the bill.

i could see him doing horry's job in S.A. horry is about 35 and is known for coasting in the reg. season.
the nets have no bench he would probably be their 5th best player...possibly 4th he could play a big role in his home state.

the heat ...i dont see much of a need for him with a.walker around ...he could still get some min. at back up power forward.

he has icewater in his viens his playoff avg. are across the board better than his reg. season stats.

i never understood why pax/skiles didn't want anything to do with him , did timmy even play in exhibition ? he surely never made it to the season and he was never considered a bad apple , no criminal or bad guy , though people here have tried to make it seem that way .

the bulls players seem to like him , as did the knicks players , before last season he went through a big time off season conditioning effort , the guy is the most monsterous 3 in the league at about 6'10 250.

but hey ...why would the bulls have a use for a guy like that when they can start 6'7 othella harring ton at power forward or or the 6'8 duo of sweetney and songalia.

I want my team to try to win and if skiles cant handle TT it doesn't say much about him because other coaches have handled him just fine and found ways to use him effectively, if not as a star but as an effective starter or role player.

unless TT was a divisive influence and no one has even remotely even said that in connection with the bulls i put it on pax/skile why this guy and his 14 mil. hasn't helped the bulls one iota on a team that needs size and scoring , when he is a big guy who is a scorer .

especially now that ben starts ...i could have seen reason to say maybe having them on the court at the same time might have comprimised the defense , but TT can easily spark the team with his shot and post up ability off the bench.

i dont ask these question and wnder whats wrong with tim i wonder why do the combo of skiles and paxson have such a problem that they cant use talents available to them to help the team prosper?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I know TT and its basically whats said in the press. No conspriacies. The Bulls dont want him around. TT has no ill will towards Pax but said that Skiles never laid out for him what he wanted. Sorry for the apologists but there is nothing more to it then that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



rlucas4257 said:


> I know TT and its basically whats said in the press. No conspriacies. The Bulls dont want him around. TT has no ill will towards Pax but said that Skiles never laid out for him what he wanted. Sorry for the apologists but there is nothing more to it then that.


what does it say about a coach that can find more use in james thomas than tim thomas?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ScottMay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...feb24,1,624283.story?coll=cs-basketball-print
> 
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/3685961.html
> 
> ...


Of those, the ESPN report seems the most credible (although I'm not sure why). Thanks for that. I guess we'll see how it plays out.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



rlucas4257 said:


> I know TT and its basically whats said in the press. No conspriacies. The Bulls dont want him around. TT has no ill will towards Pax but said that Skiles never laid out for him what he wanted. Sorry for the apologists but there is nothing more to it then that.



the part about skiles not making it clear what he wanted is confusing to me. i remember seeing the bulls training camp show on nbatv and it was very clear to me that skiles expected tim, and all the players from the knicks trade, to earn their playing time in practice. just like all the other players. was that not clear to mr. thomas? or did he just expect some kind of preferential treatment?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

There are press reports every three or four weeks that Jay Williams is going to sign with a team. Hasn't happened yet. I think a lot of that is his agent putting feelers out to teams and letting the local press know to keep his name out there.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

There are Tim Thomas apologists? Thats news to me, but I cant say Im surprised.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



narek said:


> There are press reports every three or four weeks that Jay Williams is going to sign with a team. Hasn't happened yet. I think a lot of that is his agent putting feelers out to teams and letting the local press know to keep his name out there.


You're seriously suggesting that Thomas's agent somehow managed to persuade ESPN.com's lead basketball writer to characterize the Lee Nailon trade as having been made almost solely for the purpose of the Sixers' clearing enough space under the luxury tax threshold so as to be able to offer Tim Thomas $500,000 for his services down the stretch?

Ludden and Jasner are fairly reliable sources, too.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

TT was not wanted here from the trades beginning to the merciful parting of ways. It does not have to be more complicated than that, Pax himself said TT's contract was trade filler.

Being a vet it is understandable that Thomas would question his non-role on the team, and Skiles and Pax made a decision, agree or disagree?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ScottMay said:


> You're seriously suggesting that Thomas's agent somehow managed to persuade ESPN.com's lead basketball writer to characterize the Lee Nailon trade as having been made almost solely for the purpose of the Sixers' clearing enough space under the luxury tax threshold so as to be able to offer Tim Thomas $500,000 for his services down the stretch?
> 
> Ludden and Jasner are fairly reliable sources, too.


I'm not disputing every single report. But a lot of reports on possible player signings come from sources other than the teams invovled. Vince Carter and Tim Thomas were high school friends, so I can believe New Jersey would take a look. 

I was greatly surprised at George Karl admitting Denver was interested since Thomas expressed displeasure with Karl in the past.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

The thing that strikes me about the Nets and the Spurs is that it seems they're just looking to rent him, for very cheap, til the end of the season. The Nets have not been hesitant to take on questionable personal issues if it meant adding a whole lot of talent. They took Kidd at the height of his wife-abuse stuff going on. They took, no actively pursued through a trade, Carter, who was (and I actually agree) vilified for giving up on his team after signing a lucrative contract with them. They probably would have kept K-Mart around if he wasn't so freakin expensive, even with all of his slightly unstable personality issues.

Getting Tim Thomas is the type of move that just might get the right mix of talent for THIS SEASON.

The Spurs, similarly, have their cores set but are looking to rent a guy that can just add a spark a little bit. Glenn Robinson? Remember? A career 20 point guy that just came off a 16.6 ppg, 31.8 mpg role in Philly played 9 games for the Spurs and scored 10 points a game in 17.4 minutes. They have their cores set; they just rented a valuable, talented player, knowing that there's little Robinson could do to mess up the chemistry they already had.

*Neither of these teams, in my opinion, are looking to sign Tim Thomas in the long-term. *

The Bulls felt that his short-term added value to this season was less beneficial than the long-term potential damage (actually, opportunity cost is a better term; I don't think Thomas would have really seriously hurt the locker room or the direction of the team, just slowed it down) and the lack of any long-term gain, because the Bulls are not a Finals-bound contending team looking for strong talent to rent. If they were, I'll bet that Skiles and Pax would have made more concessions. As it turns out, that's not the way they're choosing to build the franchise in its FORMATIVE stages.

*And that's the main difference. Teams that are on the brink and already have an established identity want to add a very talented guy to add depth, sit on their bench and make a difference in spot minutes for one season to reach their final destination immediately. Teams like the Bulls, who are a few seasons away, don't feel that a 42-47 win season and a 1st round exit is enough of a cause to rent a guy and take away minutes and development for the guys who WILL be here next season and the years to come.*

Kukoc4ever's view, I know, is that he'll take the wins now and that a party line of sacrificing present wins for future payoff is getting old. It doesn't seem like many others are on board with him with that, but it's still a legitimate view, if a minority one. But I think Pax/Skiles' view, the view of those who support them on this board, and the views of the Bulls fans in general that I've known on these forums, is that it just doesn't make sense to invest ANYTHING into a player that will be guaranteed to be gone next season and sacrifice player development and chemistry for a one-season rented talent.

The truth about Tim Thomas, I think, is as rlucas put it: there were philosophical differences, the team rejected Thomas as a member of this roster as a result, and while that's a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow, it just makes sense. The fact that they're trying to buy him out right now speaks in favor of that mutually friendly view; I think if Pax could have known from some oracle that there was a 0% chance of using his contract in a trade before the deadline, the buyout/waiver would have happened before the season started.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Da Grinch said:


> what does it say about a coach that can find more use in james thomas than tim thomas?



LOL, now that's funny.

The GM is willing to spend hours and hours of time and money scouring the NBDL and CBA for crap, and yet we're paying a competent NBA player that has played solid minutes on every team he's ever been on 14 million to stay home.

Goofy.

And yah, TT will play for the minimum for those teams. As long as the Bulls buy him out. He's also willing to play for the Bulls for the money they are paying him, if Paxson could just swallow his pride.



As for short term vs long term, yah, I agree that's a factor. Its just sad that we're one year removed from being the 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference with one of the youngest teams in the league, and we're now forced to take the "long term" view again. It seemed like we were ready to take another step forward, now we're several steps back and playing the lotto again.

Also, you gotta love the textbook "attack the source." Its always a fun game to play. Except, that once you find an actual quote and story "we didn't talk to anyone about our core" suddenly even the quotes and news articles are not to be believed.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I dont know which is the correct translation, but they say you sometimes have to take a step back to take two foward. Well, I think thats what the Bulls did this past offseason.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Also, you gotta love the textbook "attack the source." Its always a fun game to play. Except, that once you find an actual quote and story "we didn't talk to anyone about our core" suddenly even the quotes and news articles are not to be believed.


Here's an even more fun game to play... Let's just read into something that which we want to read into it because to actually try to honestly and intellectually analyze it takes too much time and thought.

Like the possibility that Pax's statement that he "didn't talk to anyone about our core" could mean that he didn't actively shop our young players. Perhaps that quote means that he wasn't calling other GM's about moving our core, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he was contacted about our core and just didn't find anything of value. There was a blurb in the washington post that he contacted them about a deal of Sweetney for Etan Thomas. It was reported that the Wizards wanted Deng instead. No deal was done. I'm quite sure that teams inquired about a player like Ben Gordon but obviously what could have possibly have been offered wasn't enough to move him. This sort of activity, of course, gets turned around as to Pax not working the phones hard enough or whatever suits your purpose at the time rather than the simple possibility that Pax didn't actively shop our core but may well have been contacted about them. It's just sooooo much more mind-numbing to just unequivocably state that not shopping our core meant that he did nothing. Never mind the complete and utter lack of any proof.

Never let thought or honest evaluation stop a good ole slander-fest! Carry on!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> LOL, now that's funny.
> 
> As for short term vs long term, yah, I agree that's a factor. Its just sad that we're one year removed from being the 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference with one of the youngest teams in the league, and we're now forced to take the "long term" view again. It seemed like we were ready to take another step forward, now we're several steps back and playing the lotto again.


I know that's your MO, but the way I see things, you can attack the premise once (or even over and over again), but it's not like the moves made on that premise are illogical.

Make sense? For instance, you can be mad that we let Curry and Davis go, guys that were extremely important to our success last year, especially if you think they were let go for no good reason at all. But if for a second, you just put yourself in the shoes of a sane GM who did believe that they needed to be let go, what do you do with Tim Thomas? I think the course of action is consistent.

You can disagree with the body as a whole, but I think it makes consistent sense internally to the premises.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> LOL, now that's funny.
> 
> The GM is willing to spend hours and hours of time and money scouring the NBDL and CBA for crap, and yet we're paying a competent NBA player that has played solid minutes on every team he's ever been on 14 million to stay home.
> 
> ...


it is funny isn't ?

for instance ben gordon , last season when skiles was asked why doesn't ben play more and skiles actually said ben's conditioning and defense wasn't up to it. nobody said boo about 21 year player who couldn't play more than 25 minutes agame .

but let that have been a 22 year old eddy curry and it would have been a 20 page thread with all the "agendas" 

there was chatter about ben being traded to a team like denver because supposedly ben wanted to start, which of course was called lies of the media ...of course shortly after that ben is starting and the rumors die down...thats the sort of thing that would make someone think something is up ...but bring it up here and you are pax/skiles hater.

do people ever stop and think the reason there are so many whispers that ben and skiles dont get along is because they just may not but are proffesional to work through it...not every player airs his dirty laundry with a 15 min. tirade within earshot of reporters.

where theres smoke there is usually fire.

but hey what do i know .


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> If he really is that bad a guy, why are successful franchises like the Spurs and Heat lining up to sign him.


I don't see why this matters. The Spurs signed Glenn Robinson last year, I don't think he would've made the Bulls a better team. I'm not saying he's a bad guy but I don't buy the "we should've kept him because a better team is interested" argument.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



> Thomas has said he is interested in joining the Nets, Sixers, Spurs or Heat. However, Bulls GM *John Paxson* has said he would be reluctant to waive Thomas if he were going to sign with an Eastern Conference team battling with the Bulls for a playoff spot (i.e., the Sixers).* If the Bulls can't get assurances from Thomas' agent, Arn Tellem, that his client won't sign with Philadelphia, they might not agree to let him go.*Chicago probably would not have an issue with Thomas' signing with the Nets. New Jersey, in fact, traded *Marc Jackson*, *Linton Johnson* and $100,000 cash to the Hornets for *Bostjan Nachbar*, in part to clear some salary room under the luxury-tax threshold so they can sign Thomas if he becomes available.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/marty_burns/02/27/notebook/1.html

Paxson wouldn't have worries about TT if he didn't think he has any value.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Also, you gotta love the textbook "attack the source." Its always a fun game to play. Except, that once you find an actual quote and story "we didn't talk to anyone about our core" suddenly even the quotes and news articles are not to be believed.


I said I don't believe Paxson on that issue and I stand by it. But that's for another thread.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



spongyfungy said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/marty_burns/02/27/notebook/1.html
> 
> Paxson wouldn't have worries about TT if he didn't think he has any value.


It is sort of funny that guys here have argued up and down that he had nothing to contribute and yet Pax is concerned enough about him going to a rival that he'll eat money going into the high six, possibly low 7 figures to see that it doesn't happen (more money than he was willing to spend on a guy like Adrian Griffin!). If he was a cancer that made every team he's ever been on worse, you'd think Pax would be insisting he goes to the Sixers.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Showtyme said:


> But if for a second, you just put yourself in the shoes of a sane GM who did believe that they needed to be let go, what do you do with Tim Thomas? I think the course of action is consistent.


There seem to be plenty of sane GMs of winning teams out there are eager to add Tim Thomas to their roster to help them win NBA basketball games.

Perhaps the team is in a state where keeping a clean jib is more important than wins and losses.

And for those who don't think Tim Thomas makes any kind of difference, why are these GMs of winning teams lining up to sign him? I understand the party line of preserving the crystal clear jib as much as possible, but still, if he was worthless, winning teams would not want him.

Its just funny that the current organizational philosophy puts fielding the best possible team behind pure jib, even when that pure jib can win more games than they lose.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



fl_flash said:


> actually try to honestly and intellectually analyze it takes too much time and thought.


I would love to do that. Usually that kind of post is hammered for "where's the evidence?" or "quote?" or "link?"






> Like the possibility that Pax's statement that he "didn't talk to anyone about our core" could mean that he didn't actively shop our young players.


This is closer to what happened, IMO. Its a shame though that Paxson is not proactively pursuing deals to try and improve our team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



jbulls said:


> I don't see why this matters. The Spurs signed Glenn Robinson last year, I don't think he would've made the Bulls a better team. I'm not saying he's a bad guy but I don't buy the "we should've kept him because a better team is interested" argument.


I also don't think that Tim Thomas will be out of the league next season. He has a few years left in him. Big Dog was washed up.

There is a demand for his services. Services that the Bulls are paying for but choosing not to use. And there will be a demand for his services next year as well, barring injury.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Its a shame though that Paxson is not proactively pursuing deals to try and improve our team.


Considering how little you think of Paxson's past trades, maybe you should be glad he didn't make a trade. :angel:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I used to read this board for the intelligent posts, and RealGM for laughs.

Sadly, the roles have now been reversed.

Not that there aren't still a lot of intelligent posts here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



bullsville said:


> I used to read this board for the intelligent posts, and RealGM for laughs.
> 
> Sadly, the roles have now been reversed.


EDIT - Take a deep breath and everyone see if we can be nice to each other for once. (This means everyone, not just you K4E.) Thanks. -jnr


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Now Phoenix has entered the mix:



> The Nets' pursuit of Tim Thomas took a sharp turn for the worse Sunday night, when Chicago's buyout provisions expanded to include a demand that the forward find future employment outside of the Eastern Conference.
> 
> Bulls GM John Paxson told agent Arn Tellem that he is determined to give Thomas the money he has left on his $14 million contract and allow him to become a free agent, but only if Thomas subsequently signs with San Antonio or Phoenix.
> 
> ...


http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/114110888934360.xml&coll=1


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I'd like to see him go to Denver and pair up with Kenyon Martin

No chemistry problems there unless you can consider several hundreds pounds of Cemtex wouldn't blow the lid off a Peanut Butter jar


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> I'd like to see him go to Denver and pair up with Kenyon Martin
> 
> No chemistry problems there unless you can consider several hundreds pounds of Cemtex wouldn't blow the lid off a Peanut Butter jar


:laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

KMart and TT . . . it'd be like Johnny Sacramoni having to work with Ralph Cifaretta.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

from marc stein's chat earlier today on espn:


_matt (Chicago): Hey Marc, don't the bulls have enough money to let thomas sit out the whole year. Why the buyout? Does he even deserve it? _

*Marc Stein: If they can save close to $5 million, that's pretty significant. That's why the Bulls would let him go. But I like hearing that Paxson is insisting that Thomas signs in the West if they let him out. I don't even know if that's something you can put in writing, but I like the thinking. *


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> There seem to be plenty of sane GMs of winning teams out there are eager to add Tim Thomas to their roster to help them win NBA basketball games.


It's almost as if you didn't actually read my post, you just looked for a statement to disagree with.

Those teams are at a completely, utterly, totally, fundamentally DIFFERENT PLACE in the growth of their franchises than we are. You can complain about the philosophy, but you can't complain about the consistency within that philosophy. Instead, you came back, trying to defuse my argument by complaining about the philosophy again.


> Perhaps the team is in a state where keeping a clean jib is more important than wins and losses.
> 
> And for those who don't think Tim Thomas makes any kind of difference, why are these GMs of winning teams lining up to sign him? I understand the party line of preserving the crystal clear jib as much as possible, but still, if he was worthless, winning teams would not want him.


Fine, fine, other teams want to rent a talented guy to sit on their benches for a fraction of a season and we don't. Wow. You make it sound like successful GMing doesn't differ from franchise to franchise. I'm convinced that if Thomas had another year on his contract, he'd be playing in a Bulls uniform today, and I'd be stunned and shocked if that were not the case.

But he doesn't, and Paxson would be fielding a WORSE team next year, a DEFINITELY worse team, when Tim Thomas helped us with those four extra wins that would get you all happy. Can you please answer that question? How would we possibly be seeing Deng and Nocioni learn these tough lessons and make these tough strides if Tim Thomas were in there getting significant minutes? How would Deng, Noch, and Gordon be better players next year (the players we WILL have) if Thomas was taking up their minutes (the player that we definitely will NOT have next year)?

Because even the Brand-Artest-Miller party line sometimes forgets that those players got BETTER while they were on the Bulls. We WATCHED them get better. They did make big jumps when they got onto teams with better coaching, better supporting players, and other stars that they made their entire teams better, but they were getting better WHILE on the Bulls as well. I predicted, on the day after we traded Artest and Miller for Rose, that in a few years, we'd look back and regret that we even traded Artest for Rose by himself, not even considering Miller. Fans, coaches, and everyone could understand that we had talent and that the talent was getting better.

You can pull off being "proactive" and acquiring talent to "win NBA games" this season only if you can take a shot at the championship, and only if you can fleece other teams into getting real stars, like Miami and New Jersey did. But Vince Carter and Shaquille O'Neal are VERY different players from Tim Thomas. It's not some blanket rule that you always get and play the most talented players available, even if other teams might be in a situation to play that player for 12 mpg.

So please, throw jib out the window for a second. Forget it exists. Just tell me why you think the benefit to the Bulls over the next five years in the growing of their young players in the most formative phases of their careers and forming a team identity is less important than renting a player for one single season and then watching that player walk while seeing our own players less developed as a result. We're not talking about jib. We're talking about PLAYER DEVELOPMENT.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

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


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



sp00k said:


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


you can say that again.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ViciousFlogging said:


> you can say that again.


...and one more time.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Showtyme said:


> We're talking about PLAYER DEVELOPMENT.


Great post, Showtyme.

One question, though -- where would you rate making the playoffs in terms of player development?

Not to speak for him, but I think that's all k4e's getting at. Me, personally, the biggest lesson that I took away from the worst six-year stretch in NBA history was "Just win, baby." You need to keep an eye on the future, obviously, but nothing's as important as winning.

The biggest reason we mistakenly let go Brand, Miller, et. al., wasn't because they weren't talented, or even because they were crazy. It was because their teams didn't win. We can pretend that Paxson and Reinsdorf will stay the course no matter what and see this team through to the bitter end, but there are a lot of real-world obstacles that are going to get in the way of it. 

Yeah, TT would have taken away some development time from Noce and Deng, although certainly nowhere near the amount of time Noce and Deng take away from each other in that respect. And I am in no way suggesting that we'd be sailing to a playoff spot right now if TT had been active. Still, when our shot at a playoff berth is going to come down to the wire, I can't help but think he would have been good for a net gain of a game or two this season. I sure wouldn't have minded seeing him get some of the PF minutes that instead went to "Sweets," Othella, Allen, or Noce/Deng.

This is all supposed to be about winning championships, right? I'm not going to look it up, but I am pretty positive that no team in the modern NBA era has won a championship without making the playoffs the season before. It's a completely different brand of basketball, with a very steep learning curve, and it can't be learned through anything other than experience. Remember how long it took Jordan to get it right? 

From where I sit, I would have happily given away some of Deng and Noce's regular-season minutes this year if it meant they could get a meaningful taste of postseason action. Postseason play could go a long way toward forming Paxson's decisions on who'll stay and who'll go when the inevitable happens and we have to consolidate at certain positions. Even a first-round blowout at the hands of the Pistons would be chock-full of long-term positives.

If we truly believe that we have the foundation of a championship team, then imo there is nothing more important in relation to player development than making the playoffs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Showtyme said:


> It's almost as if you didn't actually read my post, you just looked for a statement to disagree with.
> 
> Those teams are at a completely, utterly, totally, fundamentally DIFFERENT PLACE in the growth of their franchises than we are. You can complain about the philosophy, but you can't complain about the consistency within that philosophy. Instead, you came back, trying to defuse my argument by complaining about the philosophy again.
> 
> ...



All well and good. As long as that its accepted that the Bulls are once again a minor league NBA basketball team, more focused on developing youth than fielding the team most likely to win NBA basketball games, then we agree.

It certainly seemed last season that our squad was ready to shed that label. We were one of the better teams in the league. If its back to being acceptable to not field the best team for any given year for the sake of player development, and you're cool with that, then fine. Enjoy your losing team. You should be used to following one by now. It almost feels natural at this point. 

I'm done taking a five year time horizon with this team. This GM has done nothing to deserve another one and given the team we had last season, its ridiculous to accept yet another reset. We've been sold a five year time horizon for the last 7 years, and the starting point of that time horizon has been reset at least 3 times. 

Those teams are in a different place. They are focusing on winning basketball games. The goal should be winning basketball games, not the perpetual rebuild that we've had for Lord knows how long.

Given the huge step back the Bulls took this season, yah, we are now in a different place than the good teams of the NBA, a group that we finally were among last season. A FUNDAMENTALLY different place. The place of the NBA loser. 

Paxson is consistent with his flawed, losing philosophy. Sadly, its poorly executed. How does a competent manager have his team regress from a top team in the East and in the process end up paying a large percentage of his payroll dollars to a player that is so fundamentally against his philosophy that its considered the best decision to just banish him without even attempting to play him? Pathetic.

Five years from now what current Bulls do you think are even going to be on this team? All these tough lessons that Deng, Nocioni and Gordon are learning, if history is any indicator, will be helping some other team win games. Why not try to win now? At this point, yah, the season is a wash, but to take that kind of attitude a couple of months ago when we were still somewhat in the thick of things, that's just defeatist. I'm not saying bring TT back to the Bulls now, although he would help us win some games, but this season is a wash. We are a minor league team again. 

As for TT, do you really think Skiles would be playing TT if he had another year on his contract? I think you are wrong. Oil and water. No way. That would be inconsistent with the flawed philosophy. Paxson certainly is consistent.

If you want to play the time horizon game, feel free. If you are happy watching a loser for the sake of player development, feel free, the Bulls are more than happy to give you one. Heck, next year there will plenty of fresh new rookies to develop. We'll get to watch them learn those oh so valuable tough NBA lessons right before our eyes. What fun! Perfect replacements for Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Nocioni, or whatever player we get rid of when its time to pay them.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I really don't understand why Tim Thomas is worth all this talk, but I'll weigh in. 

I was dissapointed with how the whole sitaution went down. I thought he could be a wildcard who'd help out by taking minutes at various positions. Kinda like how Othella and Pargo,, he'd alternate between playing a key role some games, and hardly playing at all at others, only he'd get more time than those two because of his versatility. 

I don't know if that scenario was given enough of a chance, but I've also seen comments by Thomas that indicate that he would've had a problem playing such a role(the play me or trade me thing before he was sent home, the comment about how he should've been getting 30-35 minutes, the comment about showing his true talents). I feel llike if everyone involved could've stuck with it until that period where Sweetney's game went south and we had the losing streak, we could've got a couple more wins. On the flip side , that could've been time for the tension to really build and explode into a bad situation.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I had a much longer reply ready, but I have to go take a friend to the airport. Better for brevity anyway.

Kukoc, your words are harsh and condemning, and I'd take it as a personal attack. I actually do respect your view, even though I don't agree with it. It's definitely bold, although very bitter, but I can respect that you do care about the franchise through your dissatisfaction. Most like you have already left during the torture of the post-MJ JK years.



> Enjoy your losing team. You should be used to following one by now. It almost feels natural at this point.


But that equates to ripping on fans for being fans, I don't appreciate it, and it's in violation with bbb.net's guidelines.

My response, in short, was this:

1. ScottMay, you bring an interesting point. It's a really tough choice; would I have been happy with Deng, Noch and Gordon getting fewer minutes while TT got us into the 8th seed of the playoffs? I do highly regard playoff experience for young players, but I'd have to choose the PT for the youngsters. Most of them have actually tasted the playoffs already, so it's more crucial to me that they become better NBA players than to get "playoff experience" at the expense of some of their development. But it's a really really interesting tension. I'm rooting for them like crazy to make the playoffs this season for that very reason.

2. Kukoc, things are not as bad as you say. We're still on pace to beat our win total from ANY of those five terrible years. We have talent that is recognized league wide as being just a step away from launching into the upper tier of the league. Our guys are learning through adversity right now to be ultra-precise with their execution, because we don't have the star power to get easy points. When we do get the star power, how much better will the team be as a whole? Compare, e.g., the Lakers with Kobe... sloppy sloppy.

But also, I can only say that you must still be hung up on the Curry deal, because that's the only consensus reason that we're not performing up to last season's production. Also note that most people on this board EXPECTED a step back this year, even before the Curry deal happened. Losing our starting frontcourt and not replacing them is a real problem, one that takes a season for us to rectify. If you keep preaching that we should be a 47-win team and we're not, the only reason that we can all point to is Curry leaving, and you'll have to let me know if that's not it.

More later, but the other point is that we're raising up our own players. I love that, because I love when players are attached to a team as a whole, not just coming and going to wherever they can grab a win or a shot at a ring. I'd be happy if a team of Jalen Rose, Rashard Lewis, and say Paul Pierce brought us to a championship, of course, but not as happy as if Hinrich, Gordon, Chandler and Curry get us there. Because those are OUR GUYS. And it CAN happen.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> As long as that its accepted that the Bulls are once again a minor league NBA basketball team, more focused on developing youth than fielding the team most likely to win NBA basketball games, then we agree.


I don't accept that at all, and I doubt that the majority of Bulls fans online or off would accept it either. Krause's teams were built to develop youth...Floyd was left with little choice but to play players that were guaranteed to lose. Skiles coaches to win, Paxson has stocked the team to win.

What they don't do, controversily, is believe in the win at all costs mantra. It is, instead, win our way. And, as shown by the fit of the players last season, they've got a pretty good idea of how to execute that way.

Don't forget that the plan for this season was to have Curry around. He wasn't moved during the summer, when roster shuffling usually takes place. He was moved at the begining of the season for assets that have yet to come to frutition.

Everyone (except you) expected a step back when Curry was moved. That has come to life. Skiles guys play everybit as hard as they did last season...but the effect of missing Curry in the post hurt. We win less games. Does that make the Bulls and their core and Paxsons and Skiles losers?

I'll put it this way: Put any of them on the FA market this summer in their current and respective positions and they'd get snapped up faster than Tim Thomas will.

Curry is eminently replaceable. To call for Paxsons head now means you have no faith that he can rebuild what he did last summer. I don't have that lack of faith. The Bulls are less talented, but have a better record than quite a few more talented teams. Once they get more talent, they'll move even furthur ahead. The foundation is all set.

In related news:



> Isiah Thomas, who planned to fly to Europe on a scouting trip yesterday, instead was summoned here by team owner James Dolan for a high-level meeting with Larry Brown and the rest of the Madison Square Garden brass to discuss the debacle that is the Knicks.
> --
> The last time he spoke was during training camp on Oct. 8, when optimism was high in the wake of Brown's hiring and the trade for Eddy Curry. There was no specific mention of the playoffs at the time, but several times Dolan said the ultimate "truth" would come out on the floor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



GB said:


> Everyone (except you) expected a step back when Curry was moved.


False. I thought the Bulls would be a .500 team. They have come in under my lowered expectations to this point.

There were posters on this board who predicted no change in team record.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



GB said:


> Once they get more talent, they'll move even furthur ahead. The foundation is all set.


Yeah, except for the more talent part.

These Knicks lotto picks are a godsend. I hope that Paxson manages to do something to improve the team next season and get us back to one of the top teams in the East.

But, with two #1 picks and a FA or two coming, what young player is going to have his crucial development minutes taken away? If getting TT 25 a night is an impossible task, jeez, two #1s and a MAX FA? Those same people must be scared out of their minds about getting those guys minutes.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> But, with two #1 picks and a FA or two coming, what young player is going to have his crucial development minutes taken away? If getting TT 25 a night is an impossible task, jeez, two #1s and a MAX FA? Those same people must be scared out of their minds about getting those guys minutes.


Not quite. Those two situations are much different. Two #1's and a max FA are part of the team's future, so they will be developed along with the team. It makes no sense to play Tim Thomas when he has no future whatsoever with this team. Minutes might be tight at that point, but at least you have players that plan on playing for your team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ShuHanGuanYu said:


> Not quite. Those two situations are much different. Two #1's and a max FA are part of the team's future, so they will be developed along with the team. It makes no sense to play Tim Thomas when he has no future whatsoever with this team. Minutes might be tight at that point, but at least you have players that plan on playing for your team.


I agree that the situations are different.

But minutes will have to be sacrificed.

Let's say we get Rudy Gay. Gordon's, Deng's, Duhon's, Hinrich's or Nocioni's minutes will likely have to drop. 

Its just a different mindset.

PaxSkiles is not supposed to believe in entitlement minutes. Whether that entitlement is for contract, star power or for the sake of development, its still entitlement.

Fine. If we're back to taking a five year timeframe and back to player development mode vs win the game mode then I know that Bulls fans that have been following this team post MJ are used to that.

It only makes sense to play Tim Thomas if you are trying to win basketball games this season. If that's not the goal, one year removed from being the 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference, then fine.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

I'm confused as to why there is a suggestion that TT was going to get us into the playoffs 

He's a non factor and aside for one or two fleeting moments has largely been an imposter his entire NBA career 

Which is why I am equally confused with the Marcellus Wallace / Butch routine that Pax has going on with TT :

Butch Thomas : What now between me and you ?

Marcellus Pax : There is no me and you . You leave town , you stay gone , or you be gone . You lost all of your Eastern Conference privellges 

WTF ?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> PaxSkiles is not supposed to believe in entitlement minutes. Whether that entitlement is for contract, star power or for the sake of development, its still entitlement.


No. Deng and Nocioni are both better players than TT and they play his natural position. Maybe TT could get some minutes at the 4 at Songaila/Sweetney/Othella's expense, but given that he's an even worse rebounder than them and only defends once a month, I wouldn't take that as a given either. Sure, he's 6'10", but he plays several inches shorter than that. But if TT got any minutes _at all_ at the 3, barring foul trouble or an injury, that would be entitlement minutes _for TT_ because he's the 3rd-best player at that position. And I personally just don't think TT would be helping us win any games, though that's obviously just my opinion.



> Fine. If we're back to taking a five year timeframe and back to player development mode vs win the game mode then I know that Bulls fans that have been following this team post MJ are used to that.


Who is talking about a 5 year time frame? People who support Pax tend to think this team will be firmly in the playoffs next year (ie a top 4-5 seed and hopefully making the 2nd round, if not better) and a contender for conference championships, and hence, NBA titles another year or two after that. So, my hope is that they'll be contending for titles in less than 5 years and a good playoff team NEXT year. 

You seem to be the only one harping on this 5 year time frame thing. But continue with the talking points if that's what you'd prefer.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

What's TT going to do for us? Transform us from a lottery team into a contender?

He isn't/wasn't going to be brought back this season. He was trade filler. Yes, he can probably be productive for us and give us some needed help.

But for what?

So we can make a first round playoff exit? At what cost? The development of Deng and Nocioni? Is it worth hindering the growth of Deng and Nocioni so we can make a first round playoff exit (assuming we would even make the playoffs)?

I would be all for it if we were competing. Problem is, we took a step back with the loss of Curry and Davis.

So now, we need Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Hinrich, and Chandler to continue to develop.

Where does TT fit in? Nowhere.

We need to make some significant strides this offseason, I agree....be it via trade or free agence (and/or draft)....something needs to be done. But we will still need to get good results from Deng and Nocioni to advance anywhere.

TT would just come in and take up their playing time, thus hindering their growth.

And for what? A first round playoff exit?

Meh.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

The organization is still mad at Tim Thomas using the Bulls to jack up his price and sign with the Bucks that one offseason. It wasn't Pax, it was Reinsdorf who ordered this as revenge for his lil buddy Krumbs. It came from the top. Pax was just following orders.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Don't **** with the Bulls management.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



futuristxen said:


> Revenge is a dish best served cold. Don't **** with the Bulls management.


That's sig material.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

_Dealing (with) Thomas

The Bulls plan to release Tim Thomas, but he needs the release by 11:59 p.m. Wednesday to be eligible for the playoffs with another club. *Last week Bulls officials said they were working out an oral agreement with Thomas' representatives to send him to a team that isn't competing with the Bulls for a playoff berth or one that is unlikely to play the Bulls in the playoffs. The league prohibits such an agreement, and it's possible Thomas could end up in the Eastern Conference*_





http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,5662855.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Oral agreement, I guess he didn't follow Boozergate.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Sausage King's post made a huge amount of sense yesterday and it makes even more sense after reading the report Miz posted this morning.

*Why on earth are the Bulls willing to flout league policy and the collective bargaining agreement over freaking Tim Thomas? *

Someone, explain the logic of this to me, because I don't see it. What I see is the potential to get in trouble with the league over a guy you didn't think was good enough to be on the team in the first place. What's next... maybe we can get sub-let Kevin McHale to go out and sign up Joe Smith for us? Hell, with this sort of stuff floating out there, we might need him to sign with a rival just to support the idea there was no quid pro quo in the first place.

Sorry, this is just plain poor judgement to let something like this get out there. Thomas was a bust here from the getgo, let's cut our losses and move on.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Mikedc said:


> Sausage King's post made a huge amount of sense yesterday and it makes even more sense after reading the report Miz posted this morning.
> 
> *Why on earth are the Bulls willing to flout league policy and the collective bargaining agreement over freaking Tim Thomas? *
> 
> ...


Especially given the circumstances surrounding the AD trade this spring, you'd think Pax would step lightly. Both around the league, and around actually believing any "oral contract" will be fulfilled.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1141191937231260.xml&coll=1




> The resolution of the Tim Thomas buyout agreement was nearly final last night, and it included the provision that the Paterson native would not play for an Eastern Conference team once he is released to become a free agent.
> 
> *According to a league official, Thomas is headed to Phoenix, which has a frontcourt shortage because of the recent loss of Kurt Thomas, who might miss the rest of the season with a stress fracture in his foot.*
> 
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Sam Smith is on THE SCORE right now.

Says that the Bulls handled the TT situation poorly and that he would have kept TT around, it being his contract year and all.

Claims that TT is a high level player and that the Bulls don't want TT going to an Eastern Conference team, since he can drop 30 on you. This would embarrass the Bulls.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

He's a high level player?

What does that make Deng and Nocioni?


Going to Phoenix is a good choice. Nash makes players better.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



GB said:


> He's a high level player?



According to Sam Smith.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Sam Smith . . .


That rustling noise you hear is a bunch of "Attack the Source" playbooks being thumbed through.

Ah . . . here it is. Chapter 49: How to An Attack a Source You've Recently Praised Since He/She Wrote/Said Something That Fit Your Agenda


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> According to Sam Smith.



Thats 1.


How many other analysts consider him high level? GMs? Posters?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



GB said:


> Posters?


This will fall along party lines.

He's a high level player talent-wise, that's for sure. He can drop 25-40 points on a team in a given night.

Its the consistant effort that is the problem.

Whatever. Winning teams want to add him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> He's a high level player talent-wise, that's for sure. He can drop 25-40 points on a team in a given night.
> 
> Its the consistant effort that is the problem.
> 
> Whatever. Winning teams want to add him.


They'd have taken Deng or Nocioni over him. Like the Bulls did.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



GB said:


> They'd have taken Deng or Nocioni over him. Like the Bulls did.


What is the purpose of a bench in your world?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

The Suns are a good fit for Thomas.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> What is the purpose of a bench in your world?


Nice misdirection.

Then you'd bash Skiles for not playing him over Nocioni and Deng. 

Party lines indeed. He's just a taller Jamal.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ScottMay said:


> That rustling noise you hear is a bunch of "Attack the Source" playbooks being thumbed through.
> 
> Ah . . . here it is. Chapter 49: How to An Attack a Source You've Recently Praised Since He/She Wrote/Said Something That Fit Your Agenda


But I wonder how many times in his entire career TT has scored 30 points. The odds of him doing it at all, much less against the Bulls in a meaningful game, are exceedingly slim. Seems like Smith just wanted to get a little zinger in there.

That said, I do wonder why Pax is going through the trouble to ship TT somewhere where he can't play against us. My personal opinion is he wouldn't make a lick of difference, and risking the wrath of the league over him seems silly. We're not releasing Kobe Bryant here.

edit: I took a quick look at his game logs and count 3 30 point games in his career. Two of them did come last year. Now all of a sudden I'm mad at Pax for holding the poor guy down.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



step said:


> Oral agreement, I guess he didn't follow Boozergate.


 exactly. Thomas is free to sign with any team he wants. That oral agreement doesn't mean anything but the relationship between Arm Tellum and Paxson will pretty much be dead. The Bulls organization can play it off as a betrayal and Paxson will not look like the bad guy. 

You see, Paxson is the Jack Bauer of GM's. He doesn't operate within the confines of the law but will do whatever it takes to get his way because he believes what he is doing is right. To some he's a hero because he follows his convictions.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/39394/20060301/tim_thomas_to_the_suns/



> Newark Star-Ledger - According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Arn Tellem, agent for disgruntled Bull Tim Thomas, has agreed to the terms outlined by Bulls GM John Paxson and should soon become a semi-free agent. Semi, being that his buyout comes with the provision he does not sign with an Eastern Conference team.
> 
> The Ledger reports that while the Nets were Thomas’ first choice, he now appears to be headed to the Phoenix Suns where he will step in for the injured Kurt Thomas.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

So I wonder how much the buyout is for?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Mikedc said:


> So I wonder how much the buyout is for?


me too. 

going by this:



> He will receive nearly all of the $5.1 remaining on his contract.


from my post earlier in the thread, i am going to *guess* that it was "we'll give you nearly every penny you are owed, if you don't go to the Eastern Conference".

again, this is my own personal speculation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Just so I'm clear on this: 

If the Bulls aren't saving any money by waiving him, the only benefit the Bulls get for not making him sit in his apartment collecting his paycheck is that by releasing him, we don't incur the wrath of TT's agent.

Is that about it?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Just so I'm clear on this:
> 
> If the Bulls aren't saving any money by waiving him, the only benefit the Bulls get for not making him sit in his apartment collecting his paycheck is that by releasing him, we don't incur the wrath of TT's agent.
> 
> Is that about it?


I'd guess it also includes a pay reduction in the amount he is able to sign for the rest of the season, but I think you are probably right.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ViciousFlogging said:


> edit: I took a quick look at his game logs and count 3 30 point games in his career. Two of them did come last year. Now all of a sudden I'm mad at Pax for holding the poor guy down.


Let's not pick nits about what Smith was saying. What if he said 25 points? Same point. He can have a very good game against you, which would embarrass the Bulls.


(he's had more than 3 30 point games by my quick count, BTW  )


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Let's not pick nits about what Smith was saying. What if he said 25 points? Same point. He can have a very good game against you, which would embarrass the Bulls.
> 
> 
> (he's had more than 3 30 point games by my quick count, BTW  )


...and I stand by my point that it's unlikely.

edit: I accidentally skipped a year when looking at his game logs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



GB said:


> Then you'd bash Skiles for not playing him over Nocioni and Deng.



Not if Nocioni and Deng were performing better.

And, there is time at the 4 to be had.

Once again, its not just 48 minutes at the 3 for Nocioni, Deng and TT to share.

With that flawed thinking, how could Nocioni and Deng be on the floor at the same time, which they are at times?

If you would like to continue bringing up this non-existent constraint to absolve Paxosn from this bungle, feel free.


Take a look at the lineups we actually field.

http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM

Tons of Deng and Noc at the 3 and 4.

Heck, number 11, 17 and 20 has Deng, Noc and Songo at the 3,4 and 5


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



ViciousFlogging said:


> ...and I stand by my point that it's unlikely.


Its also "unlikely" for any current Bull to score 30.

Only Gordon has more 30 point games over the last 2 seasons played than TT.

TT would be the 2nd most likely Bull to score 30 in a game. (over the last two seasons played)


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Dude,

Just stop TT is an awful player. Bad tude, bad game, and washed up at 29 years of age. IT could not wait to get rid of him. He was traded to us for filler. He is the next Eddie Robinson who as i recall you were going on about how it was skiles fault that Robinson did not live up to his POTENTIAL. TT is no different. He is all TUDE. He is a year from being kicked out of the NBA becuase no one wants him. Not one of his old coaches has made a move to pick him up. Ever wonder why that is. Because he is a lazy, stupid, selfish, self serving, non team player who gives zero to the team and thinks the NBA is the TT league. WASHED UP is the two words for him.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



giusd said:


> Dude,
> 
> Just stop TT is an awful player. Bad tude, bad game, and washed up at 29 years of age. IT could not wait to get rid of him. He was traded to us for filler. He is the next Eddie Robinson who as i recall you were going on about how it was skiles fault that Robinson did not live up to his POTENTIAL. TT is no different. He is all TUDE. He is a year from being kicked out of the NBA becuase no one wants him. Not one of his old coaches has made a move to pick him up. Ever wonder why that is. Because he is a lazy, stupid, selfish, self serving, non team player who gives zero to the team and thinks the NBA is the TT league. WASHED UP is the two words for him.
> 
> david



Yikes!

You should forward your opinion on to the GMs for the Heat, Suns, Spurs and Nets.

They seem to feel otherwise.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Now that he'll soon be joining another team, will there be excuses if and when he performs poorly? i.e. Did Paxson ruin his season by sitting him for so long, etc. or can we take it at face value?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Its also "unlikely" for any current Bull to score 30.
> 
> Only Gordon has more 30 point games over the last 2 seasons played than TT.
> 
> TT would be the 2nd most likely Bull to score 30 in a game. (over the last two seasons played)


ehh, sure. Being the only SF on NY's roster besides Ariza who can't score might have had something to do with his green light.

He's the 3rd-best SF on this team. He's about as likely to hit 30 for us as Songaila IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Zeb said:


> Now that he'll soon be joining another team, will there be excuses if and when he performs poorly? i.e. Did Paxson ruin his season by sitting him for so long, etc. or can we take it at face value?


I would think its reasonable to expect some rust, given all the time off. 

The team that decides to fork over money for his services is likely to give him a shot though. I doubt he's banished from his new squad.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> I would think it its reasonable to expect some rust, given all the time off.
> 
> The team that decides to fork over money for his services is likely to give him a shot though. I doubt he's banished from his new squad.


I think there's another factor, the fact that whoever signs him (other than maybe New Jersey) is probably not looking to give him big minutes anyway. So if he comes out with a few DNP-CD's and a few 1-4, 3 pts, 2 reb games, what can you say? The guy won't be able to do more than that unless there's an abundance of garbage time.

Now that he's been waived, I do hope that the Bulls pick someone up to keep for the rest of the season by Saturday at the latest. Let's get Wang Zhizhi and Keon Clark on our team, just for kicks. Especially if Malik Allen doesn't end up being okay for a long, long time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Showtyme said:


> Let's get Wang Zhizhi and Keon Clark on our team, just for kicks.


Hell yah. What a strange pairing. LOL.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> With that flawed thinking...
> --
> If you would like to continue bringing up this non-existent constraint to absolve Paxosn from this bungle, feel free.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



Showtyme said:


> So if he comes out with a few DNP-CD's and a few 1-4, 3 pts, 2 reb games, what can you say?


That he _was_ a high-level player until the Bulls organization ruined his career by not teaming him with Luol Deng or Andres Nocioni.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Looking like it might come down to the wire on an announcement...less than 6 hours to go.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Looking like it might come down to the wire on an announcement...less than 6 hours to go.



ESPN radio just reported he's been released. No terms so far.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



jnrjr79 said:


> ESPN radio just reported he's been released. No terms so far.


So did the Score - no details either.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

...



> Bulls waive Thomas
> Bulls waive Thomas
> 
> March 1, 2006
> ...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

:|


----------



## Sigifrith (Nov 10, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*

Should have traded him back to the knicks for Curry :clown: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

*Tim Thomas Officially Waived*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1bulls,1,6118130.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> :|


Hey TB, I found it strange that you said you would think about the Fire Pax club if this happened.

Let's say that the Bulls don't benefit in any way from simply waiving TT, but they are not really harmed either, if he goes to Phoenix. Why does it bother you? As a fan of the team, I could care less, given that the Bulls decided that he was not going to play for them.

This move does not bother me at all. IMO, its "the right way" to treat TT, given that he really didn't cause any trouble with the team, he just didn't fit in with the culture that Paxson and Skiles have created.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Let's set the record straight on Tim Thomas*



kukoc4ever said:


> Hey TB, I found it strange that you said you would think about the Fire Pax club if this happened.
> 
> Let's say that the Bulls don't benefit in any way from simply waiving TT, but they are not really harmed either, if he goes to Phoenix. Why does it bother you? As a fan of the team, I could care less, given that the Bulls decided that he was not going to play for them.
> 
> This move does not bother me at all. IMO, its "the right way" to treat TT, given that he really didn't cause any trouble with the team, he just didn't fit in with the culture that Paxson and Skiles have created.


You are right. It just sits wrong in my stomach.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The Sun-Times has the story on the waiver:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull021.html



> Multiple New York and New Jersey newspapers, citing league sources, reported Wednesday that Paxson held firm to that stand throughout his negotiations with Thomas' agent, Arn Tellem.
> 
> *"I know that there are a lot of reports out of New Jersey,'' Paxson said, "[but] we've told them, 'Do whatever you want to do.' We agreed to a buyout number. Our only goal in this thing was to save us a little money, which we will be able to do. Then it's up to Tim what he wants to do after that. He can go anywhere*.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

narek said:


> The Sun-Times has the story on the waiver:
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull021.html


Better to not let it get out in the first place, but a pretty solid statement on Pax's part.

Here's where having a good relationship with the agent pays off, because you get his backup on something like this. Agents don't want their clients screwed, but they generally don't have a big interest in airing teams' dirty laundry either.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Bulls waive Thomas
> Bulls waive Thomas
> 
> March 1, 2006
> ...


Certainly 11.9 points and 4.0 rebounds merits his MAX contract..... the guy is a superstar!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Certainly 11.9 points and 4.0 rebounds merits his MAX contract..... the guy is a superstar!


Antonio Davis
5 pts, 4.8 rebounds this season
7 pts, 5.9 rebounds for us last season


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Antonio Davis
> 5 pts, 4.8 rebounds this season
> 7 pts, 5.9 rebounds for us last season



And everyone agrees he's vastly overpaid, right?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Can someone just assemble a list of max players and then average their stats? It'd be interesting to see. Probably it would need to be done by position, to normalize the weight each position puts on each different stat category. It would probably also need to be only the stats since they've signed their max contracts, to really see if their added value upon signing panned out as financially expected.

I don't think Thomas would meet the averages for SF's, but I'll bet there's worse max players out there.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Looks like he's headin to Phoenix.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Article about him signing with Suns

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr...lRUV5eTY4ODk2NzMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2


----------

