# Article about JR in NO Paper



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

http://www.nola.com/hornets/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/1152429706258250.xml&coll=1


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Good grief, this has disaster writen all over it...




> For the franchise, it's the admittance of a mistake. Smith, whom the Hornets selected as the 18th pick in the first round of the 2004 draft, came straight out of St. Benedict's High School in Newark, N.J., to the NBA. The Hornets were impressed with his athleticism but overlooked his immaturity.
> 
> Smith, a 6-foot-7 shooting guard, never understood why Scott demanded so much or rarely complimented his play. Smith had no idea about the work involved in becoming a top-notch NBA player. He knew how to excite the crowd with his dunks and beat a defender off the dribble, but he didn't understand why it was important to work after practice.
> 
> ...


----------



## HORNETSFAN (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't know if you can say "disaster" as the Bulls did not invest much in him (and his salary is low). The Bulls are not hoping for him to be a starter as the Hornets were. If he does not shape up (which I doubt), he will be gone from the NBA. His Dad needs to back off and let the coaches coach as well.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

he's like the perfect NBA Live player. No passing or defense, just dunks and threes.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

HORNETSFAN said:


> I don't know if you can say "disaster" as the Bulls did not invest much in him (and his salary is low). The Bulls are not hoping for him to be a starter as the Hornets were. If he does not shape up (which I doubt), he will be gone from the NBA. His Dad needs to back off and let the coaches coach as well.


I have to agree. Little to risk, alot to gain. Worth a shot. This is a guy who has started 80 games in the NBA already. During the second half of 2005 he averaged 14 ppg on 42% shooting as a 19 year old.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

^^^^Very well said


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

I think Skiles is a better teacher than Scott is so maybe you can get your money's worth out of Smith. I think Scott is a little pissy, but JR's immaturity is unquestionable. The best thing about getting Smith is that time is on your side as maturity can come with age. The skill is there but the work ethic and maturity have yet to graduate from highschool.

Turn him around for me Skiles!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

This guy is as immature as they come and I've witnessed it first hand. He has a ton of ability but it will take a miracle to get him right in the head.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

At a couple of the live games I went to I saw him dancing to the music in the timeouts and looking up in the stands and joking with some buddies about girls that walked by, but he was never focused on the game or what Scott was saying in the timeouts. 

I know that I sound negative on him but I really hope he gets his stuff together because I like his game a lot.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

draft tyrus said:


> he's like the perfect NBA Live player. No passing or defense, just dunks and threes.


He is a 'Highflyer' freestyle player in Live '06.

This is why I hate certain professional sports. They are given the physical gifts and ability to play a game for their career. And, especially in basketball, you can make a lot of $. The kid is extremely talented yet does not have his head on straight. 

I would hope Skiles and and our Jibbish environment can turn him around. But, I don't bank on it. If he ever decides to practice and work hard, this kid can be a top 20 player in the league. One of the best SGs. Few kids come into the NBA from HS and make the transition that easy.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This guy is as immature as they come and I've witnessed it first hand. He has a ton of ability but it will take a miracle to get him right in the head.


once we ALL were immature.couldnt it be that being in NO with BS as the coach didnt help with his immaturely?because it sounded like they were trying to hand feed him,insteed of making sure he knew what to do and then making sure he did it..he also needs to break away from his dad and mom,that will help him mature very quick..dont toss this kid to the side pax SS,he has the game now do your jobs and get the best out of him and dont give up on him either..

this will be a great test of just how good of a coach SS really is..put the doghouse aside for this kid,as he's not a EROB type he's just young,dumb and immature.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

I watched all of NBA Rookies, which was a documentary style show with JR Smith as the star of it. He's clearly not an intelligent young man, but he seems like he generally has his heart in the right place. He deserves a second chance, at least.


----------



## Brothaman33 (Feb 21, 2006)

I see J.R. Smith, 

Incredible range, 44 inch vertical, great dunker, SO MUCH TALENT.

He is only 20, he might not even understand yet, he may never understand what he has. 

But he has it, people know he has it. If Skiles can make himself believe he has it then he can turn him into a 20 PPG player.

He has the talent to be an NBA SUPERSTAR. not a star, a superstar. If Skiles can pound this into his head. He will stay after practice, he will stay in the weightroom, he will pan out on the court.

or

he will be Tim Thomas


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I would love to be courtside the first week of training camp .This guy is gonna be wide-eyed when he sees how hard the Bulls players work and how hard Skiles is on them. I doubt he makes it to the regular season before running to daddy.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I would love to be courtside the first week of training camp .This guy is gonna be wide-eyed when he sees how hard the Bulls players work and how hard Skiles is on them. I doubt he makes it to the regular season before running to daddy.


He should play summer league. Wow, the would do so much for Skiles, the Bulls organization and the fan base. Even Josh Howard is playing summer league only a few weeks after losing the Finals!


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

The idea occurs to me that Paxson won't let J.R anywhere near his hand pick 20 year old number four draft pick if he starts showing any sort of bad attitude. 

I think having guys like TT and Deng around him that are a similar age but have a great work ethic can only be a good thing. Either he sees what he has to do to get court time or his out of here


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

JR Smith = "all show and no go"


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

he will be moved, there's no question.


----------



## CARL_oBLAZE (Jun 17, 2006)

if he's not traded skiles and pax are gonna have a long talk with j.r. about their expectations of being a player on this team, i think they will make it clear on what if your half-assing it in practice and on the court your not playing plain and simple. i think though with all the young players we have and everyone going at each other hard he'll eventually catch on...at least i hope so....this kid can be a big superstar in this league....so much talent and just wasting it away.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

CARL_oBLAZE said:


> if he's not traded skiles and pax are gonna have a long talk with j.r. about their expectations of being a player on this team, i think they will make it clear on what if your half-assing it in practice and on the court your not playing plain and simple. i think though with all the young players we have and everyone going at each other hard he'll eventually catch on...at least i hope so....this kid can be a big superstar in this league....so much talent and just wasting it away.


One thing is for sure. These words will not ring hollow. Pax and Skiles have not minced words before and have followed through no matter the talent or salary. I would love it if JR wakes up and realizes his potential. Not counting on it though.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

He strikes me as one of those gifted players in the NBA dripping with natural ability who no doubt worshiped MJ and sought to emulate his exploits but, nonetheless, never realized how much hard work, elbow grease and all-around effort and downright intelligence #23 bought to the table each day in practice, during the off-season training sessions, and, of course, during the games. 

It's like what Bird said about music: (1) first you master your instrument; (2) then you master the music; (3) finally, you forget about 1 and 2 and just play.

Jordan understood the strict necessity of all three steps, abstracted from music and applied to professional athletic endeavors. 

Somelike JR Smith only sees step #3. What a waste, and a downright shame. Who knows, maybe he'll take a sober look at his efforts so far--or, more appropriately, the lack thereof..


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

darlets said:


> The idea occurs to me that Paxson won't let J.R anywhere near his hand pick 20 year old number four draft pick if he starts showing any sort of bad attitude.


Negative examples can be good examples too. Think it won't send a message when they send JR packing two days into training camp?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JR was 13 years old when MJ and the Bulls won their last title.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> Negative examples can be good examples too. Think it won't send a message when they send JR packing two days into training camp?


also the reason Tim Thomas, I believe, was sent packing last year.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

We should start a thread and see who wins in the contest of "How long JR remains a Chicago Bulls? once training camp starts.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

What exactly are the rules about sending players down to the NBDL? Having the kid ride a bus and spend the night at a best western sounds like it would be good for this kid. Maybe practicing with people that are struggling to make 20k a year would be the wake up call this kid needs.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

There was an article on CNNSI about Gerald Green's experiences in the NBDL. He missed having to 1st class treatment when you play in the NBA. You make a good point Brian. 

The kid apparently lives with his parents, saying he is brought up well. But, if he was, he would know the value of hard work.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> There was an article on CNNSI about Gerald Green's experiences in the NBDL. He missed having to 1st class treatment when you play in the NBA. You make a good point Brian.
> 
> The kid apparently lives with his parents, saying he is brought up well. But, if he was, he would know the value of hard work.


He laid concrete with his mason father, sounds like pretty hard work to me.

The kid is just young and immature. He needs to not be coddled and to be forced to do the right thing, as long as the Bulls communicate with him and his parents I think Smith will be ok here.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> The kid is just young and immature. He needs to not be coddled and to be forced to do the right thing,


Wasn't that the Collins/Jordan way of handling Kwame?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

GB said:


> Wasn't that the Collins/Jordan way of handling Kwame?



Yeah, didn't work with Kwame but that doesn't mean it won't work with Smith, everyone is different, the Bullls need to let JR know that they are no nonsense.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah, didn't work with Kwame but that doesn't mean it won't work with Smith, everyone is different, the Bullls need to let JR know that they are no nonsense.


I don't really see how you could make it any more clear than Byron Scott did last year. It's not like the Hornet organization was handling him with kid gloves. I hope he brings something to the table, but I can't see why his behavior would change now.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I don't really see how you could make it any more clear than Byron Scott did last year. It's not like the Hornet organization was handling him with kid gloves. I hope he brings something to the table, but I can't see why his behavior would change now.


Because sometimes - sometimes - a 20 year old can learn to change once he gets a dose of reality and a swift kick in the *** from life. 

I'm not saying its likely. He's a millionaire, not a starving college kid who skipped too much class and is in danger of flunking out. 

But I'm hopeful that Skiles will ignore the guy's history and give him a shot with a clean slate. Thing is, that doesn't sound like a very Skilesian thing to do. He strikes me as the type who will start you out in a 2 foot hole, as opposed to ground level, if you've got an on-court history he doesn't like.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Problem is, he's not getting much of a dose of reality. 

He's going from one meanie coach to another meanie coach, but in the process, he is also going from the boondocks of a struggling Oklahoma City franchise to a good and improving playoff franchise in a major market.

That's not much of a kick in the ***.

I guess it will depend on how much he values minutes, and if he can get it through his head that getting minutes from Skiles = Right Way, Every Day.

If he is content getting benched and deflecting blame for his benching on mistreatment from Coach Meanie, its going to be a long season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hinrich
Gordon
Thabo
Duhon

What minutes?

Skiles is not going to coddle this guy. He does not need him. Any progress on the JR Smith front will have to come from JR Smith. If it does not, he'll be buried for the season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Problem is, he's not getting much of a dose of reality.
> 
> He's going from one meanie coach to another meanie coach, but in the process, he is also going from the boondocks of a struggling Oklahoma City franchise to a good and improving playoff franchise in a major market.
> 
> ...


He went from the hype of being considered the building block of an NBA backcourt, to the bench, to a trade throw in being placed 5th in a young team's 5 guard depth chart. And that "building block" hype wasn't based on draft hype. It was based on the fact that he supposedly broke out - and did in fact put up some very impressive stats - at the end of the 2005 season after Baron Davis was traded. 

That ain't progress in the NBA. Its a backwards fall. If that, and Skiles, don't jump start him then its on him. But in the not-so-real-world that is the real world of the NBA, I think that is a kick in the ***.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich
> Gordon
> Thabo
> Duhon
> ...


No doubt. He'll have to earn whatever he gets. He certainly has an uphill battle ahead of him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That ain't progress in the NBA. Its a backwards fall. If that, and Skiles, don't jump start him then its on him. But in the not-so-real-world that is the real world of the NBA, I think that is a kick in the ***.


Thinking about it, it might not be Skiles he has to worry about most. I think Big Ben will put him through a wall if he's not on the same page with the rest of the team. If not him, PJ Brown might just go all Charlie Ward on him.

Speaking of the Charlie Ward incident, the addition of PJ is going to make the Bulls/Knicks games even MORE fun this year. Can't wait.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich
> Gordon
> Thabo
> Duhon
> ...


You're right. Minutes will be tough to come by in the best of circumstances for JR, and minutes of any significance will depend on 1. his ability to buy into the Bulls' system and mentality and 2. how ready Thabo is to contribute (which he probably is, from what I've heard so far).

Without the reward of playing time, I fear it will be an uphill battle to get him to Come to Jesus on the whole Right Way thing.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Brothaman33 said:


> I see J.R. Smith,
> 
> Incredible range, 44 inch vertical, great dunker, SO MUCH TALENT.
> 
> ...


Not even. Tim Thomas hates practice, but will turn it on in the actual games. JR hasn't done nothin', except win a dunk contest. 

JR is bad for this team because if Skiles doesn't like him he won't get any playing time, so his trade value will be demolished. That's why I'm hoping Pax is gonna move him along in another trade.


So either this kid is a big hit or he'll be cut mid-season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Seems to me that Byron Scott didn't exactly give him the kid glove treatment. They basically benched him at that was it. And I think if PJ was going to do anything with him, he would have done so in his last two years.

I think it's probably easier for a guy like JR to believe that if he gets benched or doesn't play it's just because the coach isn't giving him a chance, rather than because he actually stinks and needs to learn how to play ball.

But there's always a chance. Personally I hope he's moved along before the season starts. If we can use him as part of a sign and trade for a bigger player - Jared Jeffries, Harrington, Gooden, Wilcox, Jarron Collins, Melvin Ely... hell, pretty much anyone... I'd be all for it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Yeah, You'd think PJ would have kick JR's *** already, but maybe now that PJ is back to playing on a team where games are going to matter, he will be a locker room enforcer. Brown doesn't have too much time left in his career and I'm sure he wants to end on the highest note possible.


OT: I don't know if this has ever been asked here. PJ Brown's first name is Collier. How'd he end up with the nickname "PJ?"


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich
> Gordon
> Thabo
> Duhon
> ...


You're 100% right. Scott didn't coddle him, and he had a heck of a lot more reason to than Skiles does.

There's simply no way that JR Smith is going to average much more than 10 to 15 minutes a game. I bet he'll also log his share of DNP's if he sticks around long enough. Smith certainly has the tools to be useful as a role player, but I just don't think he sees himself as one. I would also be curious to see if anyone can come up with any examples of a first round high school guy getting run out of town this early in his career and eventually turning things around somewhere else. I don't think I can think of any.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

At least he will be coming in knowing full well that he's at the bottom of the depth chart as opposed to being the franchise savior. That's a big wake-up call. I have a glimmer of hope.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Hopefully he reaches out and buys into the program. He has rare athleticism, and can knock down the 3 pretty well. 

If he earns his way in, he could play the Pargo role of "come in the game, create some excitement, take some bad shots, have a little flurry of scoring". Its unlikely though. All evidence points to him being traded again, cut, or benched.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> He has rare athleticism, and can knock down the 3 pretty well.
> 
> "come in the game, create some excitement, take some bad shots, have a little flurry of scoring". I


He's related to Jamal Crawford?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> Hopefully he reaches out and buys into the program. He has rare athleticism, and can knock down the 3 pretty well.
> 
> If he earns his way in, he could play the Pargo role of "come in the game, create some excitement, take some bad shots, have a little flurry of scoring". Its unlikely though. *All evidence* points to him being traded again, cut, or benched.



what evidence? link your "evidence" or are you just making stuff up because you dont like the kid?

u know what,why dont you all just STHU,keep a open mind and wait untill the kid has some games as a bull under his belt to form an opinion about him,because what you all are doing now makes me sick.pax wanted this kid on the bulls or he wouldnt have traded for him,so stop actin like pax had to take him in order for the deal to work because thats not the case..


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

bulls said:


> what evidence? link your "evidence" or are you just making stuff up because you dont like the kid?
> 
> u know what,why dont you all just STHU,keep a open mind and wait untill the kid has some games as a bull under his belt to form an opinion about him,because what you all are doing now makes me sick.pax wanted this kid on the bulls or he wouldnt have traded for him,so stop actin like pax had to take him in order for the deal to work because thats not the case..


How do you know Pax didn't have to take him for the deal to work. What kind of basketball forum would this be if everyone did as you say and STHU? Listen to what guys are saying here and you'll have an "open mind".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> You're 100% right. Scott didn't coddle him, and he had a heck of a lot more reason to than Skiles does.
> 
> There's simply no way that JR Smith is going to average much more than 10 to 15 minutes a game. I bet he'll also log his share of DNP's if he sticks around long enough. Smith certainly has the tools to be useful as a role player, but I just don't think he sees himself as one. I would also be curious to see if anyone can come up with any examples of a first round high school guy getting run out of town this early in his career and eventually turning things around somewhere else. I don't think I can think of any.


Diop wasn't traded away, but he's about as close as I can get. And I'm still not sure I'd say he's good, he's kind of a novelty act.


----------



## TNA (Jul 6, 2006)

JR=Jamal Crawford


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bulls said:


> what evidence? link your "evidence" or are you just making stuff up because you dont like the kid?
> 
> u know what,why dont you all just STHU,keep a open mind and wait untill the kid has some games as a bull under his belt to form an opinion about him,because what you all are doing now makes me sick.pax wanted this kid on the bulls or he wouldnt have traded for him,so stop actin like pax had to take him in order for the deal to work because thats not the case..


pax didn't TRADE FOR JR Smith. he TRADED tyson chandler for PJ Brown.

i guess we'll have to wait until july 12th, when pax can officially comment on all the off-season moves, to determine what his thinking on Smith is.

until then, please refrain from telling anyone to "STHU", ok? thanks.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Diop wasn't traded away, but he's about as close as I can get. And I'm still not sure I'd say he's good, he's kind of a novelty act.


Exactly. Diop is a guy who didn't work out as planned, but has a very unique skill that makes him useful - he's a big body with the bulk necessary to cover guys like Shaq down low. Smith doesn't have a unique skill, as such I can't see him being particularly useful in a limited role a la Diop.

I hope he turns into the stud that some around here think he will, but I don't think it's going to happen. Hopefully I'm wrong, but precedent is not on our side in this one.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

bulls said:


> what evidence? link your "evidence" or are you just making stuff up because you dont like the kid?
> 
> u know what,why dont you all just STHU,keep a open mind and wait untill the kid has some games as a bull under his belt to form an opinion about him,because what you all are doing now makes me sick.pax wanted this kid on the bulls or he wouldnt have traded for him,so stop actin like pax had to take him in order for the deal to work because thats not the case..


Evidence:
1.Its well documented that in NO he was asked to do the same things he will be asked to do in order to get playing time here, and he didn't comply and was thus beched and ended up being a throw in on a trade. If you aren't aware of that, well, how about you read the article at the start of the thread.

2.The Bulls already have Gordon and a fairly highly regarded draft pick, Sefelosha, at his position. If you need me to link you to that, well, I don't know what to say. 

3.Skiles hasn't proved to be a very forgiving guy for those whom he has felt haven't done the things expected of them. You should also know that if you have followed the Bulls the past few years.

If you aren't aware of those things, well I think perhaps it is you who needs to step out of the discussion, especially since you for whatever reason felt the need to respond to my post in such an angry, emotional fashion, and as you said, people speaking negatively of Smith makes you "sick".


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

TNA said:


> JR=Jamal Crawford


Crawford has alot better handles than JR as of right now, thus giving him the abilty to create his own shot better than JR can.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Evidence:
> 1.Its well documented that in NO he was asked to do the same things he will be asked to do in order to get playing time here, and he didn't comply and was thus beched and ended up being a throw in on a trade. If you aren't aware of that, well, how about you read the article at the start of the thread.
> 
> 2.*The Bulls already have Gordon and a fairly highly regarded draft pick, Sefelosha, at his position.* If you need me to link you to that, well, I don't know what to say.
> ...


Whoever costs less will be the one who wins that position long-term.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Problem is, he's not getting much of a dose of reality.
> 
> He's going from one meanie coach to another meanie coach, but in the process, he is also going from the boondocks of a struggling Oklahoma City franchise to a good and improving playoff franchise in a major market.
> 
> ...


Good post. I repped you even though I have a teency bone to pick.

Having observed more of the Hornets than I cared to this past season, I can't really put my finger on when it was that JR Smith actually fell out of favor with Byron Scott. Much like PJ Brown, who is native to and had family in Louisiana -- himself included -- that were *directly* affected by Kat, Smith didn't strike me as being terribly high on being relocated to Oklahoma City, which can be a strange, alien place because until last year it was known for little except tornadoes and the heinous 1995 bombing. I've heard his work ethic was lacking but I didn't think quite to the extent I'm seeing here. At least he didn't appear to do something REALLY ignorant to fall from grace (*cough*ChrisAndersen*cough*).

Smith has some modicum of talent, its a matter of channeling it positively towards the end goals of a team concept and a coach's desire to play what he considers "the right way." Unfortunately things like this also illustrate in living color why not all all preps to pros guys are ready for this thing, and maybe its possible that Smith is perhaps the new poster boy for why they put an age restriction on the NBA -- something I actually now have mixed feelings about, but let's face it not all 18 or 19 year old men are mentally and emotionally equipped to jump into the man's world of the NBA. And if he thought Byron Scott was a hardcase, wait till he gets a load of Scott Skiles, or ticks off Kirk Hinrich even ONCE. He could very well be on the threshold of Hell for Petulant Knuckleheads.

That is, UNLESS he's THAT desirous of a change of scenery and hopefully more willing to change his ways than that article lets on. I want to hope he is, but I'm not sold. That said, I'm sorry for my trade idea of a few weeks ago that would have, among other things, moved JR Smith to Chicago (and exchanged with Portland the 2d and 4th draft picks, something else I didn't expect that actually happened). I'm very, very, very, terribly sorry from the bottom of my heart, most of my trade ideas usually suck and I am not known for being prescient.

Finally, Tom, I am not totally sure where you get "struggling" Oklahoma City franchise in your remarks quoted above. If you meant the Hornets' post All-Star break swoon that helped kill their playoff hopes, then I understand what you meant by "struggling." I do think its important to point out the team belongs to New Orleans, not Oklahoma City, and the plan is for them to return home for the 2007-2008 season. We're just babysitting them, and while its been gratifying to actually get POSITIVE PRESS from around the country for once, at the end of the day it doesn't change certain realities in Oklahoma that aren't things, in my view, to be proud of. Back to the Hornets, though, I know I personally don't care to be associated as a carpetbagger, and I'm not the only one that feels that way. Granted the Hornets weren't a great draw in NOLA, but still, its a little cold and inappropriate to "steal" the Hornets from NOLA while its down. And forgive me for being long but this NOLA vs. Oklahoma City crap has been grinding my gears and since I'm on a roll I might as well get this out too:

Unfortunately OKC has a repugnantly sick joke of a daily newspaper, The Oklahoman, for which certain columnists have repeatedly written baseless opinion pieces (which some dolts accept as "news" because, well, it was in the newspaper!) asserting that the team is here to stay forever and anon. Interesting to note that the company that owns that newspaper also happened to have been a sponsoring "Pioneer Partner" of the Hornets last season. Can you say "conflict of interest?" What makes me sick is that outsiders assume we all obey The Oklahoman, and that's just sickening.

Even more embarassing is Hornets owner George Shinn ... I'm NOT impressed with the little fellow, who reminds me of the freak love child of Jim Bakker and Marge Schott. He says one thing to the OKC people and then says another thing to the NOLA people, tells them what they want to hear with no regard for the consequences. I'd love to hit him with two pies -- one for each face. And obviously given his history in Charlotte, NC he really knows how to rub people the wrong way. I know that's not a good reason to not embrace the Hornets -- who are actually a pretty decent little team -- but its still very difficult to support him, especially with my wallet.

Rant mode off.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Exactly. Diop is a guy who didn't work out as planned, but has a very unique skill that makes him useful - he's a big body with the bulk necessary to cover guys like Shaq down low. Smith doesn't have a unique skill, as such I can't see him being particularly useful in a limited role a la Diop.
> 
> I hope he turns into the stud that some around here think he will, but I don't think it's going to happen. Hopefully I'm wrong, but precedent is not on our side in this one.


Me either. I actually do think he'll end up being solid unless he really goes off the deep end emotionally. He seems very similar to DeShawn Stevenson, except with a legitimate 3 point shot. It's taken six years, but he's developed into a competent NBA player. If Smith could reach that level but with a nice shot, he'd be pretty ok. Like you say, no stud, but ok.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Me either. I actually do think he'll end up being solid unless he really goes off the deep end emotionally. He seems very similar to DeShawn Stevenson, except with a legitimate 3 point shot. It's taken six years, but he's developed into a competent NBA player. If Smith could reach that level but with a nice shot, he'd be pretty ok. Like you say, no stud, but ok.


JR Smith is a 5 year, 4 coach, 3 franchise guy to reach the "ok" level. Ala DeShawn, poor man's Billiups of Crawford. Not going to happen here. Even if he works at it big time, he is our 5th guard IMHO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> JR Smith is a 5 year, 4 coach, 3 franchise guy to reach the "ok" level. Ala DeShawn, poor man's Billiups of Crawford. Not going to happen here. Even if he works at it big time, he is our 5th guard IMHO.


No disagreement here


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Me either. I actually do think he'll end up being solid unless he really goes off the deep end emotionally. He seems very similar to DeShawn Stevenson, except with a legitimate 3 point shot. It's taken six years, but he's developed into a competent NBA player. If Smith could reach that level but with a nice shot, he'd be pretty ok. Like you say, no stud, but ok.


Hmm...outside of the straight to NBA high school shooting guard thing I don't see their games as all that similar. Stevenson isn't quite the athlete that Smith is, wasn't as hyped coming out of school, has always gotten after it on the defensive end and is a pretty bad outside shooter. Smith, from all acounts I've heard, is loathe to play defense and is totally in love with the 3 point shot - which he hits at a good clip. Smith strikes me as a coaster, Stevenson strikes me as a scrapper.

(BTW, I think we're essentially coming from the same place re: Smith. I just thought I'd thrown in my two cents about Stevenson)


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

TNA said:


> JR=Jamal Crawford


SKiles actually liked, or at least didn't begrudge, Crawford. And Brown said that Crawford was his favorite player on the Knicks (not that's saying much, but that's something). Crawford became a much better player last year on the Knicks and I don't think he's getting the credit for it. Him, rose, and Quinten were proly the only ones that gave a damn in practice and on the court. Crawford took his defense to a much higher level than before, began to choose his shots better, and most of all he began using his athleticism to drive to the basket and get a huge number of free throw increase this year.

All that aside, I am still happier that we traded Crawford to make room for Ben.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

nanokooshball said:


> SKiles actually liked, or at least didn't begrudge, Crawford. And Brown said that Crawford was his favorite player on the Knicks (not that's saying much, but that's something). Crawford became a much better player last year on the Knicks and I don't think he's getting the credit for it. Him, rose, and Quinten were proly the only ones that gave a damn in practice and on the court. Crawford took his defense to a much higher level than before, began to choose his shots better, and most of all he began using his athleticism to drive to the basket and get a huge number of free throw increase this year.
> 
> All that aside, I am still happier that we traded Crawford to make room for Ben.


Repped for your comments on Crawford. A lot of people didn't notice the changes in his game last season amid the Knicks choking act. If he is working hard this offseason and continues to play the right way he could be huge next year. 

Of course we didn't have to trade Crawford to sign Ben Wallace IMO.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Repped for your comments on Crawford. A lot of people didn't notice the changes in his game last season amid the Knicks choking act. If he is working hard this offseason and continues to play the right way he could be huge next year.
> *
> Of course we didn't have to trade Crawford to sign Ben Wallace IMO.*


I'm not going to try to turn this into a discussion about Crawford and how he would or wouldn't fit here now. But I will note my agreement with you about Crawford's improved play last season. I honestly never thought he would make any progress of substance. But he did make a little last year. Thats important. And good for him for doing so. Hopefully, he keeps thinking about Larry Brown when Isiah is letting the rest of the team play free flow. I'm concerned Thomas will undo the good things Brown did for Crawford. 

But I'm curious about the part I bolded. What is your reasoning for this?

We got whatever we would have paid Crawford in capspace - reasonable to assume it would have been identical to what the Knicks are paying him (or at least so similar as to be inconsequential). Plus, they agreed to take JYD's deal. In return, we got contracts that expired prior to this summer. 

Admittedly, I don't know when JYD's deal expired. But even if you just subtract Crawford's contract from our capspace, wouldn't that have put our cap figure a couple of million below what we are paying Wallace per year? 

I don't know the answer, I'm asking.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not going to try to turn this into a discussion about Crawford and how he would or wouldn't fit here now. But I will note my agreement with you about Crawford's improved play last season. I honestly never thought he would make any progress of substance. But he did make a little last year. Thats important. And good for him for doing so. Hopefully, he keeps thinking about Larry Brown when Isiah is letting the rest of the team play free flow. I'm concerned Thomas will undo the good things Brown did for Crawford.
> 
> But I'm curious about the part I bolded. What is your reasoning for this?
> 
> ...


Well first let me say that I agree with you about the Thomas/Crawford situation and I will be curious to see how it plays out. At this stage of his career if Crawford ever wants to reach the elite level he can't really afford to regress. 

The Crawford deal did clear some cap space, thats true. Of course it was a couple seasons ago so it isn't all that germaine to the Wallace signing in that many moves have been made since then. There were plenty of ways we could have been under the cap enough to sign Wallace without dealing Crawford, in fact, I believe JYD's deal would be off of the books now. Crawford's contract isn't nearly as ridiculous as some people assert, he is making a slightly over MLE contract, about par for a good sg in this league. Anyway, the reason I made the statement I did is because I think if we wanted to sign Ben Wallace, and had resigned Crawford, there could have been any one of a number of other moves made to free up enough cap space to sign Ben. And lets not forget we probably didn't even expend all of our available cap on the Wallace deal anyway, I have heard estimates after trading Tyson that we still have anywhere from 4-6 mil in capspace THIS season.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

I hope he can be a star for the Bulls. I wish the Bulls still had Crawford.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> The Crawford deal did clear some cap space, thats true. Of course it was a couple seasons ago so it isn't all that germaine to the Wallace signing in that many moves have been made since then.


I don't understand that. The capspace saved over the course of the last two summers - which includes the Crawford deal - was put directly to use in signing Wallace. Moreover, that deal, and the Jalen Rose deal, got us far more cap flexibility for this summer than the Curry deal did. It was a series of moves that got us the $$. The Crawford deal was a prominant part of that. 



> There were plenty of ways we could have been under the cap enough to sign Wallace without dealing Crawford, in fact, I believe JYD's deal would be off of the books now.


I addressed that. Even if JYD's deal was off the books, wouldn't Crawford's deal (if signed to with Chicago instead of New York) put our capspace # this summer *under* what we are now paying Wallace per year? 

I think the answer is yes. But I'm not certain. I'm hoping someone can answer that. 



> Crawford's contract isn't nearly as ridiculous as some people assert, he is making a slightly over MLE contract, about par for a good sg in this league.


That isn't relevant. It doesn't matter if its ridiculous. What matters is whether it would have obstructed the Wallace signing. 

And as we all know, its "slightly over the MLE" for last season. It escalates. It is a 7 year, $56 million deal. Thats an average of $8 million per year - well above the MLE. The last year comes to about $10 million. Not that it matters to this discussion. 



> Anyway, the reason I made the statement I did is because I think if we wanted to sign Ben Wallace, and had resigned Crawford, there could have been any one of a number of other moves made to free up enough cap space to sign Ben.


Like what? 

Not acquire Deng? Not acquire Nocioni? Trade our 4 lottery picks for expiring contracts? 

This may read as sarcasm, but its not intended that way. What types of moves are you talking about? 



> And lets not forget we probably didn't even expend all of our available cap on the Wallace deal anyway, I have heard estimates after trading Tyson that we still have anywhere from 4-6 mil in capspace THIS season.


Maybe yes. AFTER trading Tyson. But Wallace was signed before that. So the pre-Chandler trade cap figure is the relevant one. And lets say its $4-6 million. Lets say that is accurate. And lets ignore the fact that this wasn't the figure when Wallace was signed. Isn't Crawford's cap # greater than that this summer?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Maybe yes. AFTER trading Tyson. But Wallace was signed before that. So the pre-Chandler trade cap figure is the relevant one. And lets say its $4-6 million. Lets say that is accurate. And lets ignore the fact that this wasn't the figure when Wallace was signed.


Not to nitpick, but Wallace is not yet signed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

resign crawford, resign curry, don't resign chandler

hinrich / duhon
gordon / crawford
nocioni / deng
wallace / allen
curry / cedric simmons


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Nothing like the 20-20 hindsight.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not to nitpick, but Wallace is not yet signed.


Thats not nitpicky, thats a good point. 

Does it impact my point? I honestly can't figure out if it does or not. I don't think it does. Written or verbal, the numbers Wallace agreed to would have been based on pre-Chandler trade figures. 

And even if they weren't, I still think Crawford's deal puts us under what we offered Wallace.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't understand that. The capspace saved over the course of the last two summers - which includes the Crawford deal - was put directly to use in signing Wallace. Moreover, that deal, and the Jalen Rose deal, got us far more cap flexibility for this summer than the Curry deal did. It was a series of moves that got us the $$. The Crawford deal was a prominant part of that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate with you over it. If you don't beleive there were other moves that could have been made during the course of the past two years then fine, you don't beleive that. We could have signed Chandler for less? Let Chandler walk? Not resigned Duhon since we wouldn't need him with Crawford anyway? There are probably a half a dozen things we could have done a little differently and any combination of them could have netted us the necessary cap space.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> resign crawford, resign curry, don't resign chandler
> 
> hinrich / duhon
> gordon / crawford
> ...


and...what? I don't think that is a better roster than our current one, except that it does give us one scoring option down low, I guess.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> and...what? I don't think that is a better roster than our current one.


That roster would beat our current one.

Curry > PJ Brown, we actually have some scoring in the post, we have the Larry Brown, inventor of "the right way", approved Crawford instead of the rookie travails of the Swiss Miss and the same gang of jib leadership.

Good enough to win this season? Hmmm.. .maybe... that team with Wallace replaced by Chandler was the 3rd best team in the East 2 seasons ago. The young players have become better since then, Wallace > Chandler and Crawford (this season) > Thabo most likely.

And.... its a way that Crawford could have been resigned and we land Wallace.


Also opens the door to trade ops to improve other areas of the team. Would the Suns take Gordon and Deng for Shawn Marion?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate with you over it. If you don't beleive there were other moves that could have been made during the course of the past two years then fine, you don't beleive that.


I didn't say I don't believe it. I asked you what you had in mind. If you want to avoid the discussion then fine. I'm just trying to follow up on something you said that didn't make sense to me and get to the bottom of it. 

I'm either right or I'm wrong. I'm trying to find out which. 



> We could have signed Chandler for less? Let Chandler walk?


There you go. Thats what I'm talking about. 

Would you have advocated that at the time Chandler was signed? Did you advocate that at the time for the purpose of increasing capspace this summer? 



> Not resigned Duhon since we wouldn't need him with Crawford anyway?


Okay. 



> There are probably a half a dozen things we could have done a little differently and any combination of them could have netted us the necessary cap space.


Yes, but just saying that in the abstract without considering the circumstances or the specifics isn't really saying anything at all. Your Duhon thought, for example, is a very good one. 

I'm trying to have a serious discussion about this without considering the desireability of retaining Crawford from a basketball perspective - because then we just turn it into the Crawford Update Thread. I'm looking to see if retaining Crawford and still signing Wallace was a viable option and whether other potential moves - by looking at the circumstances when they could have been made as opposed to hindsight - were viable.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> That roster would beat our current one.


Thats interesting. But you wanted Chandler re-signed at the time. You wanted that quite adamantly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thats interesting. But you wanted Chandler re-signed at the time. You wanted that quite adamantly.


I wanted that whole team resigned. 

Yah, I didn't think the Pistons would give up Wallace.

Hindsight is 20-20.

With Wallace and the "found money"... we're looking pretty good.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I wanted that whole team resigned.


Right. 



> Yah, I didn't think the Pistons would give up Wallace.


Me neither. 



> Hindsight is 20-20.


Damn straight.



> With Wallace and the "found money"... we're looking pretty good.


Hallelujah!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I didn't say I don't believe it. I asked you what you had in mind. If you want to avoid the discussion then fine. I'm just trying to follow up on something you said that didn't make sense to me and get to the bottom of it.
> 
> I'm either right or I'm wrong. I'm trying to find out which.
> 
> ...



Ok, I understand. What I would ask you to understand from my perspective is that, yes, I was one of the few people who wanted to retain Crawford, of course at the time I wasn't thinking about 2 seasons later signing Ben Wallace. In fact, at the time I think if anyone had suggested that we would be doing that they would have been laughed at. So, to go back and try to retroactively figure the cap moves we could have made to sign Ben Wallace is a bit of historical brain flexing. Duhon is the clear and easy cut. Surely there could have been others. I was all for keeping Curry Chandler too which would have definitley kept us from signing Big Ben unless it was via sign & Trade. Obviously I am pleased we signed Wallace, when our capspace was there and Wallace was grumbling down in Detroit I had a sneaky suspicion the Bulls would get him. But, like I said, it is very difficult to look backwards, capwise, and discuss what other path I would have taken to get Ben Wallace since I didn't expect he would be available then, nor did I expect us to ship Curry off making capspace available.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate with you over it. If you don't beleive there were other moves that could have been made during the course of the past two years then fine, you don't beleive that. We could have signed Chandler for less? Let Chandler walk? Not resigned Duhon since we wouldn't need him with Crawford anyway? There are probably a half a dozen things we could have done a little differently and any combination of them could have netted us the necessary cap space.



True...and we always end up in the same exact spot: We, right now, have a very good roster AND excellent prospects for the future.

If it had turned out bad --> then complain.

If it could have turned out better because a player we let go really becomes a great player --> it's hypothetical. That same player still on our roster could have suffered a career ending injury too. And then...

We'd end up in the same exact spot: We, right now, have a very good roster AND excellent prospects for the future.

So why sweat the hypothetical stuff?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

GB said:


> True...and we always end up in the same exact spot: We, right now, have a very good roster AND excellent prospects for the future.
> 
> If it had turned out bad --> then complain.
> 
> ...



I'm not and I am not complaining. I just made the offhand comment that I think we could have done other things to sign Wallace if we had kept Crawford and the Penguin is pinning me down on the details!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Ok, I understand. What I would ask you to understand from my perspective is that, yes, I was one of the few people who wanted to retain Crawford, of course at the time I wasn't thinking about 2 seasons later signing Ben Wallace. In fact, at the time I think if anyone had suggested that we would be doing that they would have been laughed at. So, to go back and try to retroactively figure the cap moves we could have made to sign Ben Wallace is a bit of historical brain flexing. Duhon is the clear and easy cut. Surely there could have been others. I was all for keeping Curry Chandler too which would have definitley kept us from signing Big Ben unless it was via sign & Trade. Obviously I am pleased we signed Wallace, when our capspace was there and Wallace was grumbling down in Detroit I had a sneaky suspicion the Bulls would get him. But, like I said, it is very difficult to look backwards, capwise, and discuss what other path I would have taken to get Ben Wallace since I didn't expect he would be available then, nor did I expect us to ship Curry off making capspace available.


Thats all fine. I was just trying to follow up on one thought you had. As I read it, my interpretation was you were saying we could have just not done the Crawford trade and we would have had the capspace to sign Ben Wallace. I didn't think that was accurate. And I still don't.

But then you said it would have required other cap friendly moves to pull it off. I agree with that. But that naturally leads to the question of "what moves"? And then we definitely get into the "brain flexing" hypotheticals. But if we are going to do that, we need to consider the circumstances as they existed at the time - which is exactly what you did with the Duhon example. 

I think, in fact, your Duhon example might have put us over the top in being able to retain Crawford while having the space for Wallace. Maybe. It would be a close call. But as I approximate the numbers in my head, that might have been enough.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I just made the offhand comment that I think we could have done other things to sign Wallace if we had kept Crawford and the Penguin is pinning me down on the details!


Law school. Look what it did to me. I can't read or hear anything anymore without requesting a basis. Its sad.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thats all fine. I was just trying to follow up on one thought you had. As I read it, my interpretation was you were saying we could have just not done the Crawford trade and we would have had the capspace to sign Ben Wallace. I didn't think that was accurate. And I still don't.
> 
> But then you said it would have required other cap friendly moves to pull it off. I agree with that. But that naturally leads to the question of "what moves"? And then we definitely get into the "brain flexing" hypotheticals. But if we are going to do that, we need to consider the circumstances as they existed at the time - which is exactly what you did with the Duhon example.
> 
> I think, in fact, your Duhon example might have put us over the top in being able to retain Crawford while having the space for Wallace. Maybe. It would be a close call. But as I approximate the numbers in my head, that might have been enough.



I think we probably still would have fell a little short with just Duhon being let go. I could be wrong though, even though I know a little about the cap and the cba I am far from a capologist. It's difficult for me to even remember the exact circumstances at the time. Was there a fringe guy we could have cut to make up the difference? Pargo probably. I didn't want to get into a big hypothetical debate about what we could have or should have done concerning Crawford, merely wanted to point out that there were other options...even though I probably don't know or remember all of them.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Law school. Look what it did to me. I can't read or hear anything anymore without requesting a basis. Its sad.



Congrats for going. I was going to go myself but then got a decent job and burntout after my bachelors degree. The "decent job" is turning out now, after the loss of some major clients, to not be so decent after all and I find myself wishing I had gone ahead and gone to law school as I had originally planned. I could have been the next Clarence Darrow, Alan Derschowitz, or Johnny Cochrane at the very least...except I am white. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I think we probably still would have fell a little short with just Duhon being let go. I could be wrong though, even though I know a little about the cap and the cba I am far from a capologist. It's difficult for me to even remember the exact circumstances at the time. Was there a fringe guy we could have cut to make up the difference? Pargo probably. I didn't want to get into a big hypothetical debate about what we could have or should have done concerning Crawford, merely wanted to point out that there were other options...even though I probably don't know or remember all of them.


Pargo already didn't count against our cap this summer. Neither did any of the other peripheral scrubs except Allen. I don't think there were any minor moves left. Save Duhon, it looks like they would all have been substantial moves essentially eliminating a core player - like not re-signing Chandler or not signing Nocioni at all. Thats kind of why I was asking for your specific thoughts.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Congrats for going. I was going to go myself but then got a decent job and burntout after my bachelors degree. The "decent job" is turning out now, after the loss of some major clients, to not be so decent after all and I find myself wishing I had gone ahead and gone to law school as I had originally planned. I could have been the next Clarence Darrow, Alan Derschowitz, or Johnny Cochrane at the very least...except I am white. :biggrin:


Its never too late to lose your soul and pollute your mind. Law school is waiting, lurking. Its always an option.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Pargo already didn't count against our cap this summer. Neither did any of the other peripheral scrubs except Allen. I don't think there were any minor moves left. Save Duhon, it looks like they would all have been substantial moves essentially eliminating a core player - like not re-signing Chandler or not signing Nocioni at all. Thats kind of why I was asking for your specific thoughts.



I understand. Of course at the time of resigning Crawford Ben Wallace was the furthest thing from my mind too.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its never too late to lose your soul and pollute your mind. Law school is waiting, lurking. Its always an option.



I'm 36 now...it has been simmering in the back of my brain but I really think I am too old now with all of the lawyers they are churning out these days. Aren't there 2 lawyers for every person on the planet now anyway? :biggrin:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I'm 36 now...it has been simmering in the back of my brain but I really think I am too old now with all of the lawyers they are churning out these days. Aren't there 2 lawyers for every person on the planet now anyway? :biggrin:


It's never too late. (Although there are a lot of lawyers - they don't all make a living at it).

Seriously, lots of people go to Law School much later in life. My brother did it at age 30. He had classmates in their 40s who did well after graduation. Lots of people get into the tech industry much later in life, too. In fact, my company likes to hire tech people who had different professions before they went into IT - the other background helps in a business environment.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

narek said:


> It's never too late. (Although there are a lot of lawyers - they don't all make a living at it).
> 
> Seriously, lots of people go to Law School much later in life. My brother did it at age 30. He had classmates in their 40s who did well after graduation. Lots of people get into the tech industry much later in life, too. In fact, my company likes to hire tech people who had different professions before they went into IT - the other background helps in a business environment.



Thats interesting and quite honestly I didn't know it. I assumed there would be the one or two odd older people trying for their law degree, it is encouraging to hear that there are more than I thought. IT is an interesting field too, definitley one for the future but I guess thats pretty much stating the obvious. Thanks!


----------

