# Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson (now including exclusive BONUS material)



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Paxson interview 



> Q. Brown is your tallest regular now at 6-feet-11 and he’ll be 37 when the season starts. Does that make acquiring another big man in the next year or so a top priority?
> 
> A. Well, yeah, that’s something we’ll have to address. Next year’s draft is going to be very deep. *We’ll still have the ability to have money and do some things in free agency, hopefully*.


I didn't think we'd have more than the MLE next year. If we really wanted to maximize cap space again for next season, we shouldn't have front-loaded Wallace's deal or signed Griffin to more than one year guaranteed. 



> Q. You obviously traded away Chandler to make room for Wallace’s contract. Tyson just had a rough season, but his statistics in 2004-05 were similar to Wallace and he’s eight years younger. Was it a tough decision to let him go?
> 
> A. The criticism already from people about our deal is we took on an older player and Tyson’s young. What I know about Ben Wallace is he’s an established player in this league. He’s not going to stop trying to be one of the best defenders in the league. *Yes, we had to give up Tyson * and you can always say, ‘What if?’


IMO, this makes it seem like Pax is working on a budget set by Reinsdorf, as some here have suggested in the past. 



> Q. You traded shooting guard J.R. Smith to Denver almost immediately. Why not take a look at him in training camp first?
> 
> A. Our backcourt is still one of the youngest in the league. I just felt it would have been very difficult having another young player back there, especially given the fact that it isn’t likely that he’s going to play a lot of minutes for us.





> Q. Outside of signing Adrian Griffin, are any other personnel moves planned?
> 
> A. We’ll probably just take a deep breath. Obviously, the thing we’re going to keep our eyes and ears open for is the ability to find another big if possible. Maybe something comes down the pike that we can take a look at.


Looks like we're done making moves for now, but I'm glad Pax is acknowledging the need for another big down the line. 

Great questions from McGraw, BTW. 

:greatjob:


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

great read, I like the way Pax tried to be very positive about Tyson, allthough he's pretty disappointed obvious. And it is very clear that he likes our backcourt a lot so that trading away JR was a nobrainer for him. Actually I think JR got the best part of the deal here, he doesn't rot on the end of the bench or on IL here in Chicago, but gets a chance to play in SG-starved Denver.

Him talking about getting another big does make me wonder if he still has an eye on Wilcox or Gooden or maybe as rlucas indicated on Swift or Petro? 

Anyway he seems to really like the team as it is and hell.... I can't wait for preseason to start!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



SALO said:


> IMO, this makes it seem like Pax is working on a budget set by Reinsdorf, as some here have suggested in the past.





> The fact of the matter is I have great respect for Tyson. We tried everything here over the last couple years to help him improve and put him in the right situation. It’s quite possible that he’ll have a great career. I fully expect that to happen. It’s just sometimes you say to yourself, ‘It would be helpful if things had worked out a little bit sooner.’ That’s one of the risks you take when you draft young.
> 
> Look, we’re moving forward. Tyson’s moving forward. Now he’s no longer the guy that has to live up to being traded for Elton Brand. He’s no longer the guy that has to live up to the contract he got last year (six years, $63 million), because he’s in a new situation.


It also sounds to me like the org considered Tyson a disappointment and nobody was trying to hard to make a case to keep Tyson for the betterment of the team.

In other words, Pax may have had a budget, but he wasn't impressed with Tyson enough or concerned about his loss enough to ask for a bigger budget.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Very good questions. 

I agree with Tom's take on the Chandler thing. I agree that it sounds like there are budget constraints. But I also read that, and I read a guy trying to say nice things about a player that he was finished with and looking to move.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

He knows we need another big. I don't think he's gonna go into this upcoming season lacking the LAST little thing to make the roster whole.

When you do a trade, you still have to trade for a player that will fit your system. When Griffin is official, he can look at the cap, look at the trade bait & decide on what he can do. Problem is, Duhon is still injured, Malik Allen won't net you much & Sweetney probably doesn't have much trade value at the moment.

I'd personnally feel alot better with atleast 1 more guy over 6"11.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



The ROY said:


> He knows we need another big. I don't think he's gonna go into this upcoming season lacking the LAST little thing to make the roster whole.
> 
> I'd personnally feel alot better with atleast 1 more guy over 6"11.


yep.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

I think the 2 remaining spots on the rosters are simple fills.

3rd String PG- Jay Williams
Big man- Antonio Davis

Both could probaly be had at the minimum. I know Jay Williams publicly said he just wants a one year garaunteed contract at the minimum. Both would be dedicated to winning, AD's a leader, and Jay Williams has a chip on his shoulder (probally on his leg too) to prove himself.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

_*We tried everything here over the last couple years to help him improve and put him in the right situation.*_


this quote says to me it was a basketball decision before it was anything else.

takes two to tango. i think the minute he showed up to camp out of shape last season was the beginning of the end.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

If Chandler didn't have that long term, high priced contract, he'd still be a Bull. If the Bulls had a one year, 3 million team option for instance.

Also, if he had a really good season last year, like he did the previous season, he very well may still be a Bull as well. At least we would have likely received more when we salary dumped him.

We'll see soon enough how wise it was to be done with Chandler from a basketball perspective. If he's ineffective like he was the first few months of last season, it was a good idea to salary dump him.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



sloth said:


> I think the 2 remaining spots on the rosters are simple fills.
> 
> 3rd String PG- Jay Williams
> Big man- Antonio Davis
> ...


what exactly does antonio davis provide that you feel so intent on thinking we need him??


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



mizenkay said:


> _*We tried everything here over the last couple years to help him improve and put him in the right situation.*_
> 
> 
> this quote says to me it was a basketball decision before it was anything else.
> ...



Interesting. I would have said the Bulls did everything they could last year to NOT put Tyson in the right situation. He was asked to play center all year and even to body up Shaq in the playoffs, not exactly the best way to utilize a guy who needs a big body in the frontcourt with him to be successful. He WAS successful the year before last. I don't know what Pax means by that comment.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> If Chandler didn't have that long term, high priced contract, he'd still be a Bull. If the Bulls had a one year, 3 million team option for instance.


Probably true.



> Also, if he had a really good season last year, like he did the previous season, he very well may still be a Bull as well. At least we would have likely received more when we salary dumped him.


Undoubtably.



> We'll see soon enough how wise it was to be done with Chandler from a basketball perspective. If he's ineffective like he was the first few months of last season, it was a good idea to salary dump him.


Yup.

And if he turns into a perrennial all-star it will prove to be a bad move.

FWIW, I think Chandler is going to come out of the gates like a madman. I think he is embarassed about last year and really thinks he wants to erase that. I bet the trade doubled his motivation.

What I doubt is that he has the focus to maintain that momentum long term. 

Ah well, water under the bridge now. I'll be tuning in to watch, one way or the other.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



> Q. Outside of signing Adrian Griffin, are any other personnel moves planned?
> 
> A. We’ll probably just take a deep breath. Obviously, the thing we’re going to keep our eyes and ears open for is the ability to find another big if possible. Maybe something comes down the _*pike*_ that we can take a look at.


He Just had to remind me

Another sleepless night.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> If Chandler didn't have that long term, high priced contract, he'd still be a Bull. If the Bulls had a one year, 3 million team option for instance.
> 
> Also, if he had a really good season last year, like he did the previous season, he very well may still be a Bull as well. At least we would have likely received more when we salary dumped him.
> 
> We'll see soon enough how wise it was to be done with Chandler from a basketball perspective. If he's ineffective like he was the first few months of last season, it was a good idea to salary dump him.


going into his SIXTH year, he's coming of a step backwards year, and it wasnt a step back from anything awe-inspiring. we're still talking about what he can potentially become? we know what we had and traded it.


i tend to think posters who pretend to have the ol' crystal ball are silly, but i'm sounding like that here, because in Tyson's case we've had a more than long enough observation period already. he will continue to have small hands, and will continue to get rebounding/block stats because of his length. and he will continue to get embarassed by bigs who cant be outplayed through length alone (playoff caliber bigs, as we've seen).


we had to sign him because he's a big, and there's always the potential of moving a young big for something. Dalembert's contract drove his price up, and TC's bad year drove his trade value down. but we've brought in Ben, and will have Tyrus and possibly an '07 young big coming in. the time to cut ties is now. if you heard Paxson explain the signing, even then, he used the word "asset." he knew he could most likely get out of this contract if need be.

lets just watch him in NOK, sit back, laugh at the old times, and cease the examination of this thing already.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



> And if he turns into a perrennial all-star it will prove to be a bad move.


i'd disagee with this assessment. clearly, after 5 years it should be obvious to most that chandler lacks the fundamentals to become a "perrennial all-star"; he'll never be a scorer, he's an adequate rebounder, he'll likely always be foul prone because he lacks the fundamentals in playing straight up man defense. players like chandler who've gotten by on their athletic ability don't improve THAT much. HOWEVER, even IF he raises his game (not to an all-star level) and said game is a *benefit* to the hornet, i'll be happy for him, but the bull will have moved on with ben (for however many years he continues to play; inject skepticism here....), inject a "high energy" guy (though somewhat smaller) into the lineup in tyrus thomas, *and * they'll draft another big who's likely a lottery pick next year, so the beat goes on. by most accounts, (other than the skeptics herein) the bull is a likely 50 win team this year, so i don't see how it'll be considered a "bad move" at any point in the future.

the chandler/curry era is over. some need to get over it; i have.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Pax is getting good at this public relations thing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



BULLHITTER said:


> i'd disagee with this assessment. clearly, after 5 years it should be obvious to most that chandler lacks the fundamentals to become a "perrennial all-star"; he'll never be a scorer, he's an adequate rebounder, he'll likely always be foul prone because he lacks the fundamentals in playing straight up man defense. players like chandler who've gotten by on their athletic ability don't improve THAT much. HOWEVER, even IF he raises his game (not to an all-star level) and said game is a *benefit* to the hornet, i'll be happy for him, but the bull will have moved on with ben (for however many years he continues to play; inject skepticism here....), inject a "high energy" guy (though somewhat smaller) into the lineup in tyrus thomas, *and * they'll draft another big who's likely a lottery pick next year, so the beat goes on. by most accounts, (other than the skeptics herein) the bull is a likely 50 win team this year, *so i don't see how it'll be considered a "bad move" at any point in the future.*
> 
> the chandler/curry era is over. some need to get over it; i have.


I think the logic is that if you can keep a productive big man, you do it. It can't hurt. I agree with this as a general proposition.

The question, though, is - assuming Chandler becomes a very good player - would Chandler have become that player in Chicago with the following factors in place:

(a) Pressure on the contract - he handled it poorly in year 1;
(b) Pressure from the Brand trade - a myth in year 5 if you ask me, but Paxson brought it up again;
(c) Having his role replaced by Ben Wallace;
(d) Having what was left of his role philosophically replaced by young Tyrus Thomas;
(e) Being further challenged by what I predict to be a lottery pick big man from next year's draft as well;
(f) Overcoming the general impression that he was a disappointment in Chicago (I don't totally share that sentiment); and
(g) Overcoming whatever reservations the coaching staff had developed about him.

New Orleans is totally different. New town. Clean slate. Fans probably don't think they gave up much to get him. Team lacks big men, etc. 

Of course, who knows?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



> I think the logic is that if you can keep a productive big man, you do it. It can't hurt. I agree with this as a general proposition.
> 
> The question, though, is - assuming Chandler becomes a very good player - would Chandler have become that player in Chicago with the following factors in place:
> 
> ...


without question, i agree with the "keeping the productive big man" ideology; however the operative term becomes "productive". i think the bullet points raised effectively answer paxson's views on this. further, while i think of the 3C's chandler had the strongest mindset, i don't think he had the wherewithal to overcome points A through G; NO/OKC will help him tremedously and hopefull allow him to reach his potential, however limited it may be.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Moving right along, I found this interesting:



> Q. What do you think P.J. Brown will add to the Bulls?
> 
> A. P.J. is one of those unique veterans who always keeps himself in great condition, prides himself on the fact that he’s had longevity in this league. You do deals for a lot of reasons. But one of the things we looked at is P.J. averaged 31 minutes a game last year and put up solid numbers like he always does.
> 
> ...


I'm hoping that he means by this that PJ still has plenty of gas, more so than focusing on 31 minutes per game.

I'd like to see PJ playing 20-22 mpg. I think at that level, he can still put up close to the same numbers as last year. I believe he will be able to play more efficiently when he is not relied upon to be "The Man" down low and I think at his age, 31 mpg was probably stretching him too thin. Next to Ben, with minutes trimmed, I think he'll be just fine. I expect next season the PF position will be sort of like the "three headed monster" Center rotation in the Dynasty years. Nobody is boing to get 30+ minutes, but we have several guys who will all play a good number of minutes at the 4.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

in an *exclusive* (email from mcgraw), here is what got trimmed from the DH article. specifically, about berto off-season sightings and sweetney:


*"*I had Pax talking about Sweetney, but it got trimmed. I'll give it to you here, feel free to share:

_Q: How are workouts at the Berto Center going and have you seen Michael Sweetney this summer?_

A: We've had guys filter in and out all summer long. We always have a coach available here to shoot with them and talk to them. We're pleased. It goes back to we have guys who like to play.

*Mike's been in town ever since July 10 and has been working out every day. This is a big opportunity for Mike. He showed flashes last year for us. He knows that conditioning is a major thing for us. Come training camp, he knows we have a goal in mind for him. Like all players, it's up to them to do their work.*

_Q: Will Eddie Basden and Luke Schenscher be at training camp?_

A: Basden will unless we do something, because he's under contract. We'd love to have Luke back, but we're still working on that.

--_Translation: Luke wants guaranteed money.

--Pax said Sweetney looks "OK" as far as weight, so it sounds like no big improvement yet.


edit to add: -- Griff's signing will be official soon, but it's a done deal anyway. He's not going to pull a John Salmons. BTW, why any team would want that guy (Salmons) is beyond me.
_*"*

-------


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

at this point I'm willing to send Basden away for a 2015 2nd rounder.....

if sweets doesn't get in shape, he's gone

LUKE who?! gurantee? SLAP YOURSLEF!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm hoping that he means by this that PJ still has plenty of gas, more so than focusing on 31 minutes per game.
> 
> I'd like to see PJ playing 20-22 mpg. I think at that level, he can still put up close to the same numbers as last year. I believe he will be able to play more efficiently when he is not relied upon to be "The Man" down low and I think at his age, 31 mpg was probably stretching him too thin. Next to Ben, with minutes trimmed, I think he'll be just fine. I expect next season the PF position will be sort of like the "three headed monster" Center rotation in the Dynasty years. Nobody is boing to get 30+ minutes, but we have several guys who will all play a good number of minutes at the 4.


That is exactly how I feel about it. 

After your walk on the wild side with the Brandon Roy debacle, its good to see you back in the right again (i.e., being of the same mind as me). :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



mizenkay said:


> edit to add: -- Griff's signing will be official soon, but it's a done deal anyway. He's not going to pull a John Salmons. BTW, why any team would want that guy (Salmons) is beyond me.
> [/I]*"*
> 
> -------


Hey!!! Prior to the draft, I wanted Salmons. :curse:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Wow. Thanks to Mike for emailing that extra material to Miz.

Good to hear Sweets has been at Berto for a few weeks already. Compare and contrast to Mr. "Going to be an All-Star" who didn't even have an appearance penciled in until August. I'm rooting for Sweetney.

And Luke sure didn't help his bid for guaranteed money with that lackluster performance in the Orlando league.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Sweets is at Berto. Still hasn't lost weight according to Quickdraw McGraw. 

I guess that's good? 

Perhaps they should shut down the vending machine or close the Eddy Curry White Castle or get him on the Kirk Hinrich backyard running plan.

Magical Berto. The producer of basketball princes.

Hey, is Gordon still hanging in NYC like he has been all summer or is he working on those PG skills (at Berto of course, the only place that matters)?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



BULLHITTER said:


> the chandler/curry era is over. some need to get over it; i have.


I think some people are much more happy about this for whatever reason than they are about the trade from a basketball perspective.

Unless you are a fan of the Stuart Faggerly Trust or whatever the hell it is.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Gosh, all he said was Sweetney looked "OK" which he took to mean there was not a huge change in weight yet. He's there, and has been there through July, getting to work on what he needs to do.

Hopefully, he is staying away from the Curry White Castle, and hopefully, he's trying to lose the jelly belly by working, rather than endangering his life with ephedra-feuled crash diets.

Hopefully.

Plenty of time until camp, if he keeps working hard.

I'm glad he went to Berto, since management wants players there, so they can participate in working on what they want to get out of a player. By all accounts, Berto is one of the nicest practice facilities in the league. Some players in the past asked to work out at Berto acted like they were requested to mine coal in a Siberian gulag. At least Sweetney is **gasp** cooperating in attempt to work _with_ the Bulls and their expectations.

Good for him, and that is why I am rooting for him to succeed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



DengNabbit said:


> going into his SIXTH year, he's coming of a step backwards year, and it wasnt a step back from anything awe-inspiring. we're still talking about what he can potentially become? we know what we had and traded it.


During the 47 win season he was nearly as productive as Ben Wallace.
The season before he came out of the gate on fire, until ravaging his back on a horrific injury sustained while (all bow heads in reverence) diving for a loose ball. 
Last year he had a brutal start to the season.

I don't think we have any idea what we traded. If he's on the court, he's one of the top 10 rebounders in basketball. If he can cut down on the stupid fouls and play comfortably , like he did two seasons ago we traded away one of the best 7 footers in the game. If he's the same guy from the first two months of last season, then good riddance. 

During the playoff series against Washington, he played very well.

Thank goodness we don't have to worry about inconsistency anymore.

I wonder how many donuts Sweetney ate today or what Tyrus Thomas is up to?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I think some people are much more happy about this for whatever reason than they are about the trade from a basketball perspective.


from a basketball perspective, management wisely decided it was time to cut bait with both. as difficult as it may be to give up on "potential", neither had done enough in the time they'd been *given* (no, not earned) to justify the team continuing to keep them as *centerpieces* with the other talent being assembled. one 47 win season out of 5 during which one was kept out of the playoffs due to medical reasons, while the other was just plain mediocre all while being surrounded with the best talent they'd been accustomed to having during their entire careers; well, i guess the powers that be decided it was time to "get while the gettin' was good"......

and i'm cool with that.

and personally, i've never heard of a stuart fagerly trust, either.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder how many donouts Sweetney ate today


Reasonable guess: none.



> or what Tyrus Thomas is up to?


Something freakish, no doubt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder how many donouts Sweetney ate today or what Tyrus Thomas is up to?


Seriously man. 

I used to go catfish fishing with my dad at these little farm ponds all the time in the summer. He always used stinkbait. It worked. A lot. And he was a happy fisherman as a result.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

latest ben gordon sighting in NYC this past weekend at the EBC at the Garden.



> Sebastian Telfair, Ben Gordon and Julius Hodge are in the crowd. Well, Telfair’s the only one actually in the crowd. Hodge and BG are sitting on the White team’s bench.


http://www.dimemag.com/feature.asp?id=2439


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Its not bait... its just that dealing with inconsistency is part of the game, especially with many of the big guys.

Its not going away b/c we traded Tyson Chandler.

We're going to have to deal with an inconsistent offensive effort from Ben Wallace, general inconsistent play from Thomas and who knows what Sweets is going to do.


freakish.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Gosh, all he said was Sweetney looked "OK" which he took to mean there was not a huge change in weight yet. He's there, and has been there through July, getting to work on what he needs to do.
> 
> Hopefully, he is staying away from the Curry White Castle, and hopefully, he's trying to lose the jelly belly by working, rather than endangering his life with ephedra-feuled rash diets.
> 
> ...


Thats right.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Gosh, all he said was Sweetney looked "OK" which he took to mean there was not a huge change in weight yet. He's there, and has been there through July, getting to work on what he needs to do.
> 
> Hopefully, he is staying away from the Curry White Castle, and hopefully, he's trying to lose the jelly belly by working, rather than endangering his life with ephedra-feuled rash diets.
> 
> Hopefully.


You just said.... White Castle. Those sliders!!! Haven't had one in 1.5 years.

Any White Castles in FL TB#1?

Errr... and oh yeah good questions by McGraw.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> We're going to have to deal with an inconsistent offensive effort from Ben Wallace, general inconsistent play from Thomas and who knows what Sweets is going to do.


i wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption; skiles' offensive strategy was guard oriented, but from the simple act of catching the ball and finishing, wallace will easily get 8-10 ppg. chandler could've but.....

the point being "inconsistent" is not applicable *at this time*. UNKNOWN which is a much easier sandwich to digest is more appropriate.

for example, thomas hasn't played in any games yet his "freakishness" is obvious to those witnessess. what remains to be seen is how that quality translates itself in the regular season. that doesn't insure that the quality will be inconsistent, we just don't know *at this time*.

because sweetney *has* played, it's fair to extrapolate what he brings to the table; 8-10 ppg, 7-8 rebounds IF he can log 30 minutes, sometimes more, sometimes less. however, we don't know how he'll approach this upcoming contract season, nor what the competition from the new acquistions will affect his play. as in many 3rd year players, it can be their breakout season; will it be for sweetney? we don't know *at this time*.

i believe its far too early to be skeptical about rotation, roles, talents etc., because how they're utilized on this team has yet to be determined. it's generally accepted skiles is a good x's and o's coach, so now with some better players, i'll reserve judgment until at least the preseason.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

superdave said:


> You just said.... White Castle. Those sliders!!! Haven't had one in 1.5 years.
> 
> Any White Castles in FL TB#1?
> 
> Errr... and oh yeah good questions by McGraw.


That's a big negatory on the Florida Belly Bombers, Mr. Diesel. Some parts of the state have Crystal's, which is supposed to be similar, but none around here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption; skiles' offensive strategy was guard oriented, but from the simple act of catching the ball and finishing, wallace will easily get 8-10 ppg.


If it was that easy for him, how come he only averaged 7.3 last year?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i don't look up stats, but could it be that billups, hamilton, et al didn't dish the ball on forays to the hoop? 

i'd imagine wallace had the least amount of shot attempts of all the starters; further, my projection for wallace is based on the amount of touches chandler received and missed out on by not finishing, not catching, and not being remotely threatening with the ball in his hands. chandler looked afraid to touch the ball at times last season; this is a quality that thankfully, wallace doesn't possess.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That's a big negatory on the Florida Belly Bombers, Mr. Diesel. Some parts of the state have Crystal's, which is supposed to be similar, but none around here.


speaking as some1 who has had crystal's ....it sucks 

white castle is far better.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> speaking as some1 who has had crystal's ....it sucks
> 
> white castle is far better.


I've heard that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> If it was that easy for him, how come he only averaged 7.3 last year?


I don't know exactly why and it is an interesting question to pose to someone who watched a lot of DEEEEEtrrrOOIIIIttttt BAAAAASSkeeetttBAAAAAAAAALLLLL

Ben's scoring average seems to be all over the place, going up and down by 2-3 points per game back and forth, season to season. I'd love to hear a detailed analysis of how and why.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i don't look up stats, but could it be that billups, hamilton, et al didn't dish the ball on forays to the hoop?
> 
> i'd imagine wallace had the least amount of shot attempts of all the starters; further, my projection for wallace is based on the amount of touches chandler received and missed out on by not finishing, not catching, and not being remotely threatening with the ball in his hands. chandler looked afraid to touch the ball at times last season; this is a quality that thankfully, wallace doesn't possess.


The only time he's ever scored more than 8 points a game was during the two seasons he was coached by Larry Brown. That's because Brown decided that, come hell or high water, Ben was going to get the ball to be a "threat" as part of the offense, not just get putbacks and garbage buckets.

The other seasons he was just getting his points off garbage and he didn't even get to 8. We'll see, but I wouldn't expect him to do a lot different picking up Kirk, Ben, and Lou's trash than he did picking up Chauncy, Rip, and Princes.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> The only time he's ever scored more than 8 points a game was during the two seasons he was coached by Larry Brown. That's because Brown decided that, come hell or high water, Ben was going to get the ball to be a "threat" as part of the offense, not just get putbacks and garbage buckets.
> 
> The other seasons he was just getting his points off garbage and he didn't even get to 8. We'll see, but I wouldn't expect him to do a lot different picking up Kirk, Ben, and Lou's trash than he did picking up Chauncy, Rip, and Princes.


This is pretty on the money.

Wallace didn't shoot particularly well in either of his 9 PPG seasons - 45% one year and 42% the other. I've heard several people suggesting that Wallace will be an upgrade offensively over Chandler and I just don't see it.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



John Paxson said:


> Mike's been in town ever since July 10 and has been working out every day. This is a big opportunity for Mike. He showed flashes last year for us. He knows that conditioning is a major thing for us. Come training camp, he knows we have a goal in mind for him. Like all players, it's up to them to do their work.


I don't know why some people are interpreting this so negatively. I saw it very positive, showing that Big Mike's in the Berto working on his stuff. He's working out and the coaches like it when guys train at the Berto in the off-season, so where's the problem with this?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Gosh, all he said was Sweetney looked "OK" which he took to mean there was not a huge change in weight yet. He's there, and has been there through July, getting to work on what he needs to do.
> 
> Hopefully, he is staying away from the Curry White Castle, and hopefully, he's trying to lose the jelly belly by working, rather than endangering his life with ephedra-feuled crash diets.
> 
> ...



Actually did you know White Castles has the lowest fat of any fast food hamburger. Back when White Castles first opened they even got medical endorsements and claimed you could live on Whitc Castles...ok, I watch too much history channel.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> I don't know why some people are interpreting this so negatively. I saw it very positive, showing that Big Mike's in the Berto working on his stuff. He's working out and the coaches like it when guys train at the Berto in the off-season, so where's the problem with this?


He should be at "The Rucker" honing his skeelz...


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> During the 47 win season he was nearly as productive as Ben Wallace.
> The season before he came out of the gate on fire, until ravaging his back on a horrific injury sustained while (all bow heads in reverence) diving for a loose ball.
> Last year he had a brutal start to the season.


OK, now i know you'll bring out all the stats or whatever, but sentence one is ridiculous. Productivity is apparently something we'd define differently.

Remember Kevin Garnett coming in here on multiple occasions, laughing at Tyson Chandler very audibly, then scoring on him? to the tune of 25 or so, each time?

Tyson could put up stats per 48 minutes, but he couldnt stay in games anywhere near 48 minutes. even look at that great year you cite. he could not stay on the court, he's always battled fouls because he just isnt that good of a man-on defender. he gets blocks by coming over to the weakside, while guys like Noc are doing the physical stuff.

when it gets physical, Tyson fades. Ben Wallace absolutely doesn't. Ben can go right up against the best bigs and complicate things for them, turning his 6 fouls into 12. 

you say "if" Tyson can get comfortable, he'd be fine. well he hasnt gotten comfortable for going on 6 years now, so that is precisely the problem. 



and against great players, it gets physical. you cant compare Tyson and Ben when it comes to how they play against great bigs, and thats what you face in the playoffs, no?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



DengNabbit said:


> OK, now i know you'll bring out all the stats or whatever, but sentence one is ridiculous. Productivity is apparently something we'd define differently.


27.4 minutes a game that season. 2nd highest total minutes played. 3rd highest MPG on the team.




> Remember Kevin Garnett coming in here on multiple occasions, laughing at Tyson Chandler very audibly, then scoring on him? to the tune of 25 or so, each time?


Remeber when we squared off against the world champions and beat them?

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20041222&tm=Det
Chandler .... 13 points 11 rebounds


How about the nail biting, 1 point losses to the world champs?
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050411&tm=Chi
Chandler 14 points, 16 rebounds.

How about being the leading rebounder and shot blocker on the 3rd best team in the Eastern conference?




> Tyson could put up stats per 48 minutes, but he couldnt stay in games anywhere near 48 minutes. even look at that great year you cite. he could not stay on the court, he's always battled fouls because he just isnt that good of a man-on defender. he gets blocks by coming over to the weakside, while guys like Noc are doing the physical stuff.


He had 3.4 fouls a game in the 47 win season. 


Higher than Wallace, no doubt. Wallace is better at "staying on the floor"... which is an advantage since both Chandler that season and Wallace were equally effective on a per minute basis. 

Chandler "stayed on the court" better than any other player on the team save Curry and Hinrich.

PJ Brown is also rellly good at "staying on the floor." So is Jalen Rose. Its what you do when you are on there that couts. Chandler would grab a ****load of rebounds and block shots.




> when it gets physical, Tyson fades. Ben Wallace absolutely doesn't. Ben can go right up against the best bigs and complicate things for them, turning his 6 fouls into 12.


Yah, well, when we played the Pistons 4 times that season Chandler fared pretty well against them. Look it up.






> and against great players, it gets physical. you cant compare Tyson and Ben when it comes to how they play against great bigs, and thats what you face in the playoffs, no?


I'd rather have Wallace on the team this year. Three years from now? Two? Are the Bulls a win the NBA championship now team with PJ Brown as the starting 4?

Age 22 Chandler vs. age 22 Ben Wallace? Chandler was tons better. We'll see how it plays out.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



Wynn said:


> He should be at "The Rucker" honing his skeelz...


I wonder if that's where Gordon is at this summer?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> stats stats stats. remember the '04 !!!


In a general way, i'd like to address your obsession with the 2004-05 season: it wasnt nearly as great as you make it out to be.

It's fun scrolling down this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/schedule?team=chi&season=2005

count how many of those W's are against very good teams. i count Detroit, Dallas, Miami....mm, Sacramento? if you look at those great stretches of W's, you notice that we were beating up on some pretty bad East teams over and over, and losing quite regularly to the same talented West teams.

call me crazy, but i want our main defensive threat to be able to do something against the most talented bigs, including those in the West. 

your post doesnt address this, and instead chooses to focus on those Detroit games. 

now you seem to be crediting Tyson with a lot of our success against Detroit that year. but dont you think our success against them had to do with the fact that we're similar teams... perimeter oriented? i mean, Tyson stopping Detroit's bigs isnt exactly the most ringing endorsement you can make for him. Rasheed's offensive skills are more facing the basket, and we know about other Wallace's offense. 





kukoc4ever said:


> We'll see how it plays out.


your post seems to forget that the entire 2005-06 season was recently "played out" as well. Chandler went back to being a problem for the Bulls.


despite all these great 04-05 stats, you yourself once said that keeping Chandler this year was option *#3*. you wanted him out of here in various different deals. what would be the reason for that? something that goes beyond stats: he is soft, always has been. he can get rebounds and blocks because of his length, but he won't be the starting PF in a team that wins a playoff series, as he goes up against great bigs. 

a lot of power forwards can average 9 boards. it's not that hard to replace.






if you're up for one more topic, i still want to hear what you think of Chandler as a man-on defender down low, especially against big, athletic scorers. i guarantee you that 22 yr old Ben Wallace was better than Tyson at this, since Tyson gets pushed around very easily under the basket.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder if that's where Gordon is at this summer?


Dunno. Here is his stated summer plans. I know earlier in the summer, rlucas said he was seeing Ben frequently early in the morning heading to a well-known Manhattan gym.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...&MyToken=d9351822-097e-4b48-952b-a8bffb91ddef



> My summer workout routine will be pretty similar to last years. Im going to continue to work on my overall game. You can never be a good enough shooter, ball handler or defender. Im going to keep trying to improve in all of those areas. Id like to add some new things to my game to make it as versatile as it can be. Ill also watch a lot of film from the season to see what areas I need to improve the most in. I plan on being in Chicago for a good part of the summer to work out at the Berto Center, but Ill also be home in New York, too.



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

From June 19:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3681802



rlucas4257 said:


> 6:30 AM Monday morning, walking dog, and Ben Gordon and some other guy walk out of the building next to where I live and walked over by me. They clearly had workout gear with them and has reported, I thought wrongly by the New York press, headed in the general direction of the Reebok Club in NYC. Good news, Ben is working out and working hard.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



DengNabbit said:


> In a general way, i'd like to address your obsession with the 2004-05 season: it wasnt nearly as great as you make it out to be.
> 
> It's fun scrolling down this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/schedule?team=chi&season=2005
> 
> ...



:clap:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Dunno. Here is his stated summer plans. I know earlier in the summer, rlucas said he was seeing Ben frequently early in the morning heading to a well-known Manhattan gym.
> 
> http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...&MyToken=d9351822-097e-4b48-952b-a8bffb91ddef
> 
> ...


Sounds kind of like a Hoops the Gym summer to me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> Sounds kind of like a Hoops the Gym summer to me.


Whatever floats your boat. 

You wondered where Ben was and all I can tell you is he stated he will spend some time in NY and a good deal of time at Berto over the summer, and by mid-June he was already working out at Reebock in NY.

Sounds OK to me. If he did manage to have a little fun at Rucker, its no skin off my nose, because I trust he is working out hard otherwise. No fear from me he will come into camp out hopelessly out of condition.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Whatever floats your boat.
> 
> You wondered where Ben was and all I can tell you is he stated he will spend some time in NY and a good deal of time at Berto over the summer, and by mid-June he was already working out at Reebock in NY.
> 
> Sounds OK to me. If he did manage to have a little fun at Rucker, its no skin off my nose, because I trust he is working out hard otherwise. No fear from me he will come into camp out hopelessly out of condition.



Just one look a Ben at least shows you his dedication to weightlifting, if nothing else. I sincerely doubt off-season conditioning is a big issue for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



DengNabbit said:


> In a general way, i'd like to address your obsession with the 2004-05 season: it wasnt nearly as great as you make it out to be.
> 
> It's fun scrolling down this: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...6&qualified=0&conference=NBA&year=season_2005
> 
> count how many of those W's are against very good teams. i count Detroit, Dallas, Miami....mm, Sacramento?


We beat the world champs twice.
We beat Miami (division winner)
We beat Seattle (division winner)
We beat Boston (division winner)
We beat Dallas (70%+ win pct)

The only NBA elite teams we didn't beat were Phoenix, who we played two times in the brutal start of the season before Gordon was benched and San Antonio.





> call me crazy, but i want our main defensive threat to be able to do something against the most talented bigs, including those in the West.


Ah, SHAQ and the Pistons are not enough. He went 12 and 7 with 11 trips to the line when we beat Seattle. He had 8 and 15 against Dallas when we beat them. Ah, a couple of bad games against the Spurs.

The interesting thing, IMO, about the ESPN page you linked to is how many times the names Curry and Chandler appear under HI Points and HI Rebounds.



> your post doesnt address this, and instead chooses to focus on those Detroit games.


I hope this post has the proper focus.




> now you seem to be crediting Tyson with a lot of our success against Detroit that year. but dont you think our success against them had to do with the fact that we're similar teams... perimeter oriented?


Our leading scorer was Curry.









> your post seems to forget that the entire 2005-06 season was recently "played out" as well. Chandler went back to being a problem for the Bulls.


The first couple months, yes. So was Hinrich when he took his 10 game vacation.

Once Chandler starting playing well, and racking up those double digit rebound games, the season turned around. That's what got us into the playoffs. #5 in rebound rate last season.




> despite all these great 04-05 stats, you yourself once said that keeping Chandler this year was option *#3*. you wanted him out of here in various different deals.


Well, yah, in a consolidation trade once we had Wallace signed, of course. I'd rather have KG, O'Neal... and if the alternative is the disgusting salary dump that the Bulls pulled off... I'd happliy take Drew Gooden or Troy Murphy. Cheapskates.




> what would be the reason for that? something that goes beyond stats: he is soft, always has been. he can get rebounds and blocks because of his length, but he won't be the starting PF in a team that wins a playoff series, as he goes up against great bigs.


OK, I'll hold you to this.

So, I take it, you feel if Deng and Curry were healthy against the Wizards we would have lost.

Oh, he wasn't *starting*... he only played the 3rd most minutes per game.

Its amazing that these two horrible players, Curry and Chandler, could log so many minutes and lead a winning, #3 in the east team in scoring, rebounding and blocks and be so terrible. It really was an impressive feat by Sklies that year... although it does not make sense why he would choose to play these bums so much. Curry and Chandler may be the least valuable leading scorer / leading rebounder+shot blocker for a top 4 conference team in NBA history.




> a lot of power forwards can average 9 boards. it's not that hard to replace.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...6&qualified=0&conference=NBA&year=season_2005

Maybe not?




> if you're up for one more topic, i still want to hear what you think of Chandler as a man-on defender down low, especially against big, athletic scorers. i guarantee you that 22 yr old Ben Wallace was better than Tyson at this, since Tyson gets pushed around very easily under the basket.



Well, 22 year old Ben Wallace scored 1 point a game in 5 minutes of action for the Washington Bullets, so I don't think we'll ever know that.

I saw Wallace struggling the same way against the Heat this post season. Yes, Chandler is a more effective help defender than man defender. So is Wallace.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Sounds OK to me. If he did manage to have a little fun at Rucker, its no skin off my nose, because I trust he is working out hard otherwise. No fear from me he will come into camp out hopelessly out of condition.


Yah, I agree. I'm not much of a Berto zealot either... Let the professionals act like professionals.

It will be interesting to see if Ben Gordon can play PG this season. I hope he's working on that with rlucas in NYC. Maybe Pete Meyers could help him better.

I know that many people think Berto is the best place for a young Bulls player that needs improvement with his game to be.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

We have 5 guards, with 3 ready to run the point: Kirk, Duhon, and Thabo. Sure while it would be nice to develop the dribbling skills of a true PG, it is not absolutely necessary.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I agree. I'm not much of a Berto zealot either... Let the professionals act like professionals.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if Ben Gordon can play PG this season. I hope he's working on that with rlucas in NYC. Maybe Pete Meyers could help him better.
> 
> I know that many people think Berto is the best place for a young Bulls player that needs improvement with his game to be.


rlucas is 6'7" so he probably isn't really a PG mentor.

Ben did say he will be spending a good part of the summer at Berto. Hopefully, he's there by now, and is indeed working with Pete Meyers on skills training. However, it is defensive skills and distance shooting percentage I want increased first, and then balhandling and other PG skills.

Someone who has a MySpace account should contact Ben and ask him how his summer workout is going and whether he has been to Deerfield yet.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



theanimal23 said:


> We have 5 guards, with 3 ready to run the point: Kirk, Duhon, and Thabo. Sure while it would be nice to develop the dribbling skills of a true PG, it is not absolutely necessary.


Tell that to Hinrich 1/2 way through the season a couple hours after he had to check Kobe all night.

Thabo, of course, may make every other player on the team basically irrelevant this season, that is true.

This is the Eddie Basden argument, IMO.

In the end, Hinrich and Gordon still logged the heavy minutes last season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



kukoc4ever said:


> Tell that to Hinrich 1/2 way through the season a couple hours after he had to check Kobe all night.
> 
> Thabo, of course, may make every other player on the team basically irrelevant this season, that is


Ben is too small to defend Kobe and always will be. I don't know about Thabo making anyone irrelevant, but it is Thabo's length that will give Kirk a break from having to D a guy like Kobe all night.

Having Ben play some 1 will indeed increase the guard flexibility and I'm all for it. I don't think it would be necessary in every game, but against the Lakers, it is a good example of where it would come in handy.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*

Covering Kobe: 

Unless Thabo is can be an impact from Day 1, he won't be playing much lots of minutes this year. We'll likely have Kirk and Griffin guard Kobe. But if Thabo can prove to be a decent defender, we'll be fine. No one will stop Kobe. We can throw these 3 guys at him. Next to Ben, Kirk and Thabo will be the PGs on offense. 

Its obvious that Kirk and Ben will log the most minutes. They are are best guards right now. And that isn't going to change unless Thabo makes one of them expendable, or Ben is shipped in a blockbuster.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



theanimal23 said:


> Covering Kobe:
> 
> Unless Thabo is can be an impact from Day 1, he won't be playing much lots of minutes this year. We'll likely have Kirk and Griffin guard Kobe. But if Thabo can prove to be a decent defender, we'll be fine. No one will stop Kobe. We can throw these 3 guys at him. Next to Ben, Kirk and Thabo will be the PGs on offense.
> 
> Its obvious that Kirk and Ben will log the most minutes. They are are best guards right now. And that isn't going to change unless Thabo makes one of them expendable, or Ben is shipped in a blockbuster.


True enough.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



theanimal23 said:


> Covering Kobe:
> 
> Unless Thabo is can be an impact from Day 1, he won't be playing much lots of minutes this year. We'll likely have Kirk and Griffin guard Kobe. But if Thabo can prove to be a decent defender, we'll be fine. No one will stop Kobe. We can throw these 3 guys at him. Next to Ben, Kirk and Thabo will be the PGs on offense.
> 
> Its obvious that Kirk and Ben will log the most minutes. They are are best guards right now. And that isn't going to change unless Thabo makes one of them expendable, or Ben is shipped in a blockbuster.



Umm, haven't you heard? Both Ben and Kirk are going to be struggling for minutes, as Thabo will spend much of the game manning the 1, 2, and 3 positions _simultaneously._


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



theanimal23 said:


> Covering Kobe:
> 
> Unless Thabo is can be an impact from Day 1, he won't be playing much lots of minutes this year. We'll likely have Kirk and Griffin guard Kobe. But if Thabo can prove to be a decent defender, we'll be fine. No one will stop Kobe. We can throw these 3 guys at him. Next to Ben, Kirk and Thabo will be the PGs on offense.
> 
> Its obvious that Kirk and Ben will log the most minutes. They are are best guards right now. And that isn't going to change unless Thabo makes one of them expendable, or Ben is shipped in a blockbuster.


I though Khyrapa was the Kobe-stopper.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



jnrjr79 said:


> Umm, haven't you heard? Both Ben and Kirk are going to be struggling for minutes, as Thabo will spend much of the game manning the 1, 2, and 3 positions _simultaneously._


I think we can win with Thabo and Tyrus playing 2 on 5. Easily done


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



superdave said:


> I though Khyrapa was the Kobe-stopper.


That he is. 

We all know we will never slow down Wade, LBJ, Kobe etc. But our team D will be good enough to limit the rest of their team. We can contain these guys, but easier said than done. Luckily we don't play Kobe more than twice a year. Unfortunately we will see a lot of Wade and LBJ for the next decade. We are better at containing Wade than LBJ. LBJ always ends up getting a triple double easily it seems against us. But, we got a lot of bodies and looks to throw at him. We'll be fine playing them.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



theanimal23 said:


> That he is.
> 
> We all know we will never slow down Wade,



Seems to me Hinrich has slowed Wade pretty consistently.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Mike McGraw: Q&A with John Paxson*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ben is too small to defend Kobe and always will be. I don't know about Thabo making anyone irrelevant, but it is Thabo's length that will give Kirk a break from having to D a guy like Kobe all night.
> 
> Having Ben play some 1 will indeed increase the guard flexibility and I'm all for it. I don't think it would be necessary in every game, but against the Lakers, it is a good example of where it would come in handy.


FWIW, I think Deng does a much, much better job on Kobe than Hinrich.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

UNRESTRICTED FA BIG'S :

Kelvin Cato
Scott Pollard
Lorenzen Wright
Loren Woods

Problem is, after signing Tyrus, Thabo & Adrian, we'll have no capspace left right? So in order to bring in one of these guys, we'd have to pay the luxuary right? i doubt they'd be willing to pay the luxuary for one of these guys so expect another trade to go down.

I hope Eddie Basden is waived also or his salary is added with another players to even out a trade.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> UNRESTRICTED FA BIG'S :
> 
> Kelvin Cato
> Scott Pollard
> ...


That or an S&T.

I think Pax is going to war with what he has. I think he has an eye toward the bigs in the '07 draft class, and doesn't want to tie a mediocre big like Cato et al into a multiyear contract.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

mcgraw "slumming" over at another message board with a Q&A.






> _Q: The 2007 off-season has long been a target date for several teams to get under the cap in order to land a coveted free agent from the 2003 draft class. With several of the top talents having signed extensions who do you see getting the most attention that summer?_
> 
> 
> A: I'm not sure anyone will get much attention as a restricted free agent. *If Kirk Hinrich goes into next summer without an extension, the Bulls will almost certainly match any offer he gets.* Other teams know this and probably won't bother pursuing him.
> ...





maybe we should sign *brian hanley* to an exclusive. kidding, mike, just kidding.



:angel:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> mcgraw "slumming" over at another message board with a Q&A.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder if the NBA beat writers get as bored as we do in the months of August and September?

But those questions weren't as good as ours, and no one asked Mike about Kirk's new look!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

They asked top notch questions. McGraw gave top notch answers.

Still, reading Mike doing a Q&A for another site left me feeling a little dirty. I'm going to shower up and sulk over a couple of bourbon and cokes.


----------

