# The Bulls are rotten



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ben Wallace is far from an elite player anymore.

48 minutes. 8 rebounds. 2-10 shooting. 4 years, 60 million. Pathetic. The absurd contract is bad enough, but when you factor in that Paxson spent 3 years building Cap Space for this joke of an elite level player is absurd.

Hinrich, the other guy that Paxson locked up long term, the "icon" of his flawed, losing, "right way" ideology, is playing half assed every night. He's close to being one of the worst players in the NBA so far this year. 

Paxson lost Deng and Gordon with lowball offers (for the time) and his horrible handling of the Kobe Bryant trade.

His draft picks are floundering. His coach doesn't want to even play them. 

Nocioni is the only guy out there playing worth a damn. 

This is a joke. Title contenders? My ***.

What's the point of a mad scramble back to .500 just to get tattooed by one of the actual good teams in the East in a meaningless "playoff run."

Fire Pax. Fire Skiles. Blow up the team. 

This experiment is a dismal failure. 

"The Right Way" is dead. Stick a fork in it. Bury it. Let it die. 

Let's get back to the real NBA and get some guys in here who are willing to accept reality and leave the Hoosiers fantasy at the door.

Talent > jib.

Most home games I've been to this year the Bulls have been booed off the floor. Year 5 under Paxson. At least they don't chant "Kobe" anymore. I guess hope is gone on that front too. Now there will just be boos. Lots and lots of boos.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

they were in the game the whole way, it was close at the end.

settle down.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ben Wallace is far from an elite player anymore.
> 
> 48 minutes. 8 rebounds. 2-10 shooting. 4 years, 60 million. Pathetic. The absurd contract is bad enough, but when you factor in that Paxson spent 3 years building Cap Space for this joke of an elite level player is absurd.
> 
> ...


You're a moderator? No wonder this board has gone to pot. Absolutely no original or interesting content. Just rehashed drivel.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Blow the team up? And go back to what? Maybe you have a hard time remembering how ****ty the Bulls were in their "rebuilding years". Tyson and Eddy didnt take them far enough, so the "Blow it up" theory was used once again. This is a good team. It needs some tweaks but it is a very good team. Sports writers cant all be stupid. Every last one had the Bulls current roster as a top team in the East and a contender going into this season. Contract disruptions and the Kobe trade fiasco has everyone down, but once everyone gets their heads on straight, the Bulls are a great team, they just need a small roster shaker up to wake everyone up.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ben Wallace is far from an elite player anymore.
> 
> 48 minutes. 8 rebounds. 2-10 shooting. 4 years, 60 million. Pathetic. The absurd contract is bad enough, but when you factor in that Paxson spent 3 years building Cap Space for this joke of an elite level player is absurd.
> 
> ...


woooow calm down, drink a beer


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I couldn't agree more K4E


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Not that I can really disagree with anything you said;

Have you ever posted anything that wasn't completely negative?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Marcus13 said:


> Not that I can really disagree with anything you said;
> 
> Have you ever posted anything that wasn't completely negative?


This is all he does. As far as I remember, his view is like this like forever. But what can you do? He is a moderator.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> You're a moderator? No wonder this board has gone to pot. Absolutely no original or interesting content. Just rehashed drivel.


At least he is willing to look at a different possiblity when things aren't going well.Unlike YOU and Paxson who fell in love with Pax's creation. When things don't go well, you need to make some changes. If you watch any bulls games this year, it's obvious that this team needs a go-to guy, someone who can penetrate and break down the defense. 

and let me ask you again? Why you haven't mentioned anything about how important "depth" is, how you will take depth over star players anyday in the NBA? I remmeber you being one of the loudest one before the season started, how you will never trade depth for star players. look at how it works out? and worst part is, you are still here being stubborned like Pax and Skiles, refusing to even attempt to make some moves.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ask that older Memphis Grizzlies team how those deep 10-man rotations work out. We have the pieces to make moves, but just haven't utilized them. This is why Danny Ainge gets props, he may have loved his young talent but he also knew when to pull the trigger. Pax hasn't gotten there yet. He tried to preach that it takes a team years to develop but the problem is, the team was built wrong in the first place.

I'd also say, in order for us to take advantage of Noah, TT & Gray we NEED a bigman coach that can teach these kids.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

welcome to bbb.net; where "meaningful" discussion takes place. that's right let all out all your frustrations, point your fingers and cast your current and trendiest aspersions.

gotta love the "fans"......wait; blow it up?....oh hell yea, let's go back to the days when the team had the "twin towers" and all that "potential" and a "big" playground legend in his own mind at two guard and lost 50+ games a year, and *still *didn't have any "go to guys"......

this thread is a joke; just like this forum has become.

lastly, anybody that disagrees with tanking, blowing up the team, or gutting them doesn't have to mean their pro-pax/skiles; it simply means the glass isn't totally empty like the agenda driven who hide behind cloaks of intermediary. i'd have more respect if they stood outside the UC with a frickin' sign than hating on the home team. if failure is marked by a mystical time limit to win a championship, 27 of 28 teams would fire their gm's annually.

championship or bust; yea, right as if they knew.:thumbdown:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

We lost to the Mavericks - the better team. No need for all of this.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

co-sign. Skiles double standard for Wallace is unbelievable.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Although I understand K4E's frustration, this is not a bad team. It is a mediocre team. I expect them to crawl back to the .500 level by the end of the year and possibly get a playoff berth where they will be eliminated by the Celts or the Pistons in the first round.

In my opinion, when a team struggles you have to look at the performance of the people at the top. As I have said repeatedly on this board (or its predecessor) for years the real problem is that Reinsdorf values loyalty above talent. This team needs a GM like Colangelo or Pritchard that has a vision of what a winning team should be like and then has the guts to go get the players to make it happen. And the owner has to stay out of it.

Every GM makes good moves as well as bad moves. When the bad moves exceed the good moves you have problems. I won't go into the Curry, Tim Thomas, Tyson Chandler, JR Smith fiascos at this time. They have been well-documented. IMO, the real defining moment of this franchise was the draft of two years ago when Pax selected Tyrus and Thabo. Pritchard of Portland knew who the real quality players were in the draft, i.e. Aldridge and Roy. Now, they are the cornerstones of his team. Pax drafted two "pigs in a poke" in Tyrus and Thabo. 95% of the fans on this board thought Pax was a genius. I thought he was a fool and said so. The rest is history.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> We lost to the Mavericks - the better team. No need for all of this.


Yeah we also lost to the Knicks and Sixers.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> 95% of the fans on this board thought Pax was a genius. I thought he was a fool and said so. The rest is history.


I was in that 5%, I absolutely hated the pick and got a lot of flak from all these Bulls fans on here for bashing the pick. A lot of the problems that the Bulls have right now could have been solved if only Pax drafted Aldrige, Roy or Gay with the Thomas pick and drafted Brewer with the second pick.

I don't understand all the hate for K4E, hes right. I don't know when it happened but Bulls fans are slowly taking over Bears fans for the title of "Most Retarded Fans in Chicago".


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

so now we're going to see the "all-knowing" 5% (6 posters strong, YEAH, BABEE!!1) stand up and yell to the mountaintops about "knowing all the time".......yea, right.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah we also lost to the Knicks and Sixers.



Right, and "the sky is falling" posts after those games would be more apropros than a narrow defeat to the Mavs.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> so now we're going to see the "all-knowing" 5% (6 posters strong, YEAH, BABEE!!1) stand up and yell to the mountaintops about "knowing all the time".......yea, right.


That 5% seemed to know more than John Paxon.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Right, and "the sky is falling" posts after those games would be more apropros than a narrow defeat to the Mavs.


Whats your point? That the Bulls are decent enough to barely lose to a good team and that we should be happy about that? 

The sky IS falling and in a season where anything short of a EC championship is a FAILURE why shouldn't Bulls fans feel like their season is falling apart?

Even if they do make a big comeback and make it into the playoff's which isn't an out of this world idea since they still play in the East but who honestly thinks the Bulls stand a chance at winning the title let alone beating a Detroit or Celtics team to get there.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Whats your point? That the Bulls are decent enough to barely lose to a good team and that we should be happy about that?
> 
> The sky IS falling and in a season where anything short of a EC championship is a FAILURE why shouldn't Bulls fans feel like their season is falling apart?
> 
> Even if they do make a big comeback and make it into the playoff's which isn't an out of this world idea since they still play in the East but who honestly thinks the Bulls stand a chance at winning the title let alone beating a Detroit or Celtics team to get there.


My point is that if you shoot 35% and only lose to the Mavs by 5, that's pretty crazy. It should have been a blowout with that shooting percentage and wasn't. That indicates that some other aspects of the game were going well, but obviously not well enough to get the W, which is what counts.

Do you believe the Bulls will finish the season with the lowest shooting percentage in the league (where they currently are entrenched)? The Bulls are playing like total crap right now, but there's no logical reason why all of these players, who were playing well last year, simultaneously suck right now. Nobody has offered a reasonable explanation for it, beyond "Oh man, we suck." Moreover, ok, we're playing like crap. We all get it. So what would you _do_ about it?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> That 5% seemed to know more than John Paxon.


they always do, son; they *always* do



> Whats your point? That the Bulls are decent enough to barely lose to a good team and that we should be happy about that?
> 
> The sky IS falling and in a season where anything short of a EC championship is a FAILURE why shouldn't Bulls fans feel like their season is falling apart?
> 
> Even if they do make a big comeback and make it into the playoff's which isn't an out of this world idea since they still play in the East but who honestly thinks the Bulls stand a chance at winning the title let alone beating a Detroit or Celtics team to get there.


this is what's really funny.....the bulls are "rotten".....YET, because they play in the east, there's still a chance to make the playoffs!!.....YET, the east is better top to bottom, so there's little if any "real" chance.......YET, when (or if) they get there, they're not better than any of the teams 1-8..... YET, the sky is falling, all the players suck, and the gm and coach should be removed after 15 games, regardless of 3 straight playoff appearances.....get a clue folks; it doesn't happen both ways.:lol: 

so here's my suggestion; jump off the ledge, bandwagon, whichever, and just come back when the team's good enough for your liking. paxson isn't getting fired, and neither is skiles. maybe some pepto bismol will help.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> My point is that if you shoot 35% and only lose to the Mavs by 5, that's pretty crazy. It should have been a blowout with that shooting percentage and wasn't. That indicates that some other aspects of the game were going well, but obviously not well enough to get the W, which is what counts.


Nocioni had a career game thats a huge reason why we where even in the game in the first place.



> Do you believe the Bulls will finish the season with the lowest shooting percentage in the league (where they currently are entrenched)?


The Bulls are a jump shooting team with no inside (high percentage) scoring that is way too reliant on the 3 point shot. Yeah I can imagine the Bulls being dead last here, but more realistically they will probably end the season closer to being a middle of the pack shooting team.



> The Bulls are playing like total crap right now, but there's no logical reason why all of these players, who were playing well last year, simultaneously suck right now. Nobody has offered a reasonable explanation for it, beyond "Oh man, we suck." Moreover, ok, we're playing like crap. We all get it. So what would you _do_ about it?


You got to make a trade, these guys are all jump shooting players none of them can take the ball to the basket on a consistent basis and score successfully. Ben Gordon is a very average player if he doesn't make his 3 point shots, Luol Deng is useless if he cant come off screens and shake his defender off, Kirk Hinrich has regressed the most and our big guys just suck. 

Obviously if they get their shot back things will go back to being good but you cant rely on a strictly jump shooting team to win you games consistently thru out an entire NBA season, last year was great but teams adapt to the way you play and they will do as much as they can to take away your strengths.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> they always do, son; they *always* do
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First I never said that Skiles should get fired infact I think Skiles is doing the best job he can with the players Pax has given him and I'm not asking for Pax to get fire but for him to make some moves to get this team better.

I will gladly jump off the ledge/bandwagon as soon as you EDIT.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:chill:

First off, posters need to stop attacking k4e for sharing his viewpoint on things. If you disagree with the man, post why you disagree - this is a place for discussion.

At the same time, I don't feel that the sky is falling - not one bit. It is clear that the roster as currently constituted could use some tweaking. We aren't all of a sudden a garbage team with no chance of doing anything ever - it's not all doom and gloom. We clearly have talent, as evidenced by the improvement we've made over the past few years - the issue does not lie with our team being a bunch of scrubs. I agree with what was said about needing someone who takes (and makes) a lot of high percentage shot. We need someone who can get to the line on a fairly consistent basis, too. To assume that Pax will never make a trade at this point is ludicrous in my eyes. The stars have not aligned with past deals. Ainge was mentioned as being willing to give up young players and putting it out on the line - I don't think it's fair to say that Pax hasn't done so, and I don't think we'd want him to if a deal didn't give us a better chance at winning it all. I think some posters would rather see us make a move and fail than see us play our guys and fail - there are no deals cementing us as NBA Champs, there's no deals like that for anybody.

Oh well, I'm done for now. We're all Bulls fans here. We don't have to agree on everything - I don't think we should, as it fosters excellent discussion. If some fans have a negative outlook on the Bulls, that's their call. I love this team and want them to win. I don't see us as a failed experiment, but it's clear that some tweaking could be done to improve our odds against the rest of the East.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> IMO, the real defining moment of this franchise was the draft of two years ago when Pax selected Tyrus and Thabo. Pritchard of Portland knew who the real quality players were in the draft, i.e. Aldridge and Roy. Now, they are the cornerstones of his team. Pax drafted two "pigs in a poke" in Tyrus and Thabo. 95% of the fans on this board thought Pax was a genius. I thought he was a fool and said so. The rest is history.





thebizkit69u said:


> I was in that 5%, I absolutely hated the pick and got a lot of flak from all these Bulls fans on here for bashing the pick. A lot of the problems that the Bulls have right now could have been solved if only Pax drafted Aldrige, Roy or Gay with the Thomas pick and drafted Brewer with the second pick.
> 
> I don't understand all the hate for K4E, hes right. I don't know when it happened but Bulls fans are slowly taking over Bears fans for the title of "Most Retarded Fans in Chicago".


I must have been in the 5% too as I wanted Aldridge. The other board had a majority wanting Aldridge. Many people on here wanted Gay, Roy, or Morrison as well.

I don't think 95% of fans on this board thought Paxson was a genius for picking Thomas. A majority of people liked the trade because we theoretically gained an asset (Khryapa) while still getting his man, not that Thomas was a genius pick.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

There is a reason why this board becomes a place like this. Even only a year ago, this place was a totally different place. Unless we (not just you moderators) look at the real reason why, this board (not Bulls) are doomed. There will be another wave of deserters. And that will be a sad thing. Just think of the names that you don't see any more around here. I used to think this board was THE best place to talk about the basketball and BULLS. Not any more. By a long margin. No sir, and my take on this board is way gloomier than Bulls perspective of this remainng season. Good luck to that.

Again, there is a reason why this was happening.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> There is a reason why this board becomes a place like this. Even only a year ago, this place was a totally different place.


Huh? Where you not here when we would have Jay Williams vs Jamal Crawford threads that would be 4-10 pages long with posters bashing each other and the name calling was still there. 

This place will always be a place where posters will disagree on everything from who's the greatest player in the History of the NBA (Jordan duh) to who's the ugliest player in the NBA! Thats what makes this board so damn fun, I'm glad more fans are posting some of these doom rants its alot better than some of the garbage threads we had on here like Nocioni > Dirk or Tyrus Thomas will be the next Amare threads, its a nice change of pace.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ben Wallace is far from an elite player anymore.
> 
> 48 minutes. 8 rebounds. 2-10 shooting. 4 years, 60 million. Pathetic. The absurd contract is bad enough, but when you factor in that Paxson spent 3 years building Cap Space for this joke of an elite level player is absurd.
> 
> ...


Plus, soon we will all be dead, devoured by the infinite eternal void that even now looms over our heads, ever poised to smother the feeble lights of our existences from this dark world forever. 

All K4E posts should end with that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Huh? Where you not here when we would have Jay Williams vs Jamal Crawford threads that would be 4-10 pages long with posters bashing each other and the name calling was still there.
> 
> This place will always be a place where posters will disagree on everything from who's the greatest player in the History of the NBA (Jordan duh) to who's the ugliest player in the NBA! Thats what makes this board so damn fun, I'm glad more fans are posting some of these doom rants its alot better than some of the garbage threads we had on here like Nocioni > Dirk or Tyrus Thomas will be the next Amare threads, its a nice change of pace.



What do you mean?? Nocioni is waaaaay better than Dirk! Nocioni scored more points yesterday, right? Come on!


:biggrin:


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I must have been in the 5% too as I wanted Aldridge. The other board had a majority wanting Aldridge. Many people on here wanted Gay, Roy, or Morrison as well.
> 
> I don't think 95% of fans on this board thought Paxson was a genius for picking Thomas. A majority of people liked the trade because we theoretically gained an asset (Khryapa) while still getting his man, not that Thomas was a genius pick.


You are correct. It "seemed" that 95% of the posters thought that Pax was a genius for picking Tyrus. Realistically, that may have been an overstatement.

What has bothered me on this board over the past couple of years (more than anything else) were posters who were effusive in their praise for Paxson in his using the second pick in the draft to acquire Thomas (via a trade with Portland). I am not a genius but it was clear to me that Pax made the exact same mistake as the Grizzlies' GM who picked Stromile Swift. All I saw was a sullen, undersized, enigmatic leaper from LSU who continually made stupid mistakes on the court. However, the posters here fell in love with him. The swapping of a second round pick to get Viktor added insult to injury. Pritchard and his scouting staff must have been in stitches on their end of the telephone line. 

My point is that if you net out Paxson's good moves, especically the deal for Deng and the signing of Nocioni, with his bad moves (the trading of Curry, Chandler, etc., the acquisition of Wallace) you come up with a track record that is very mediocre at best.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> You are correct. It "seemed" that 95% of the posters thought that Pax was a genius for picking Tyrus. Realistically, that may have been an overstatement.
> 
> What has bothered me on this board over the past couple of years (more than anything else) were posters who were effusive in their praise for Paxson in his using the second pick in the draft to acquire Thomas (via a trade with Portland). I am not a genius but it was clear to me that Pax made the exact same mistake as the Grizzlies' GM who picked Stromile Swift. All I saw was a sullen, undersized, enigmatic leaper from LSU who continually made stupid mistakes on the court. However, the posters here fell in love with him. The swapping of a second round pick to get Viktor added insult to injury. Pritchard and his scouting staff must have been in stitches on their end of the telephone line.
> 
> My point is that if you net out Paxson's good moves, especically the deal for Deng and the signing of Nocioni, with his bad moves (the trading of Curry, Chandler, etc., the acquisition of Wallace) you come up with a track record that is very mediocre at best.


And I respect that viewpoint.

If our goal is a shot at the Championship within the next three years, I'd still rather have Wallace than Chandler (plus Pryz or Gooden). I also doubt many would agree with me seeing Wallace's play so far this season. If we don't have that shot, then yes it was a bad move for the future of the franchise.

I still think the Curry trade was its own animal, both driven by moral and financial implications. I know ScottMay put together a very good argument, perhaps better than our front office.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you believe the Bulls will finish the season with the lowest shooting percentage in the league (where they currently are entrenched)? The Bulls are playing like total crap right now, but there's no logical reason why all of these players, who were playing well last year, simultaneously suck right now. Nobody has offered a reasonable explanation for it, beyond "Oh man, we suck." Moreover, ok, we're playing like crap. We all get it. So what would you _do_ about it?


I'll give you a decent explanation J, or try anyway. 

Because now, the onus is on Tyrus. The Bulls traded Curry and that was all fine and good. As much as Curry makes you dangerous if you have enough defenders and enough depth (i.e. Chandler, Deng and Gordon coming off the bench), you can drop him from your team and in the immediate future, you can stay on par by signing a Ben Wallace and trading for a veteran like PJ Brown. It's like refinancing your house. You get more cash now and you pay later. Because Chandler and Curry were nowhere near as fundamentally sound as a PJ Brown, but yet were able to still be as effective due to talent.

So we had PJ and Wallace and Tyrus was a nice little bonus. I mean, if he gave us something nice, great. If he didn't, we probably still had a chance to win with a player like Brown. We needed about as much from Tyrus as the Bulls needed from Toni Kukoc in 1997. 

But now, we have the dark side of the Curry and Chandler trades facing us. Because now, if we're to win anything, we have to force Tyrus into the mix. We need him to play a lead role. Now we lose what we truly had in Curry and Chandler. Bullhitter points to what we suffered through with those two talented players in Jalen Rose's time. But, by 04-05, they'd already gone through all the growing pains to at least be competent as key players.

Now, we have a dilemma with Tyrus:

1. Play him as a key player. Feed him the ball in some key situations, play him big minutes. Basically, go as he goes in many ways. He's too young for that. He hasn't gone through those growing pains, and in many ways is no more solid than Eddy Curry was at the same age. It would be like taking the 04-05 Bulls and putting the 02-03 versions of Chandler and Curry ont he team. They'd have sucked.

2. Sit him. Play him in the same role you played him last year. As an 8th man. Problem is, now you don't have enough talent on the floor in the first unit to beat that many really good teams. Nocioni is a nice patch at the four, but he'll wear down and even if he doesn't, he doesn't cause the matchup problems that Curry did or that Thomas would if he was already in his 5th year (which is what we would have gotten out of Curry).

The problem with the Curry trade was that eventually you were going to have to fuse those two draft picks into an already running machine. Tyrus is looking a lot like, for him to be as solid as Eddy Curry was in his fourth year, it's probably going to take until --- his fourth year, at least. Not to mention, Curry had a baby hook, what go to move does Tyrus have? He's yet to have one signature move that he can use consistently. 

It's confusing. It really is. It's funny that people somehow thought that a second year player and a rookie would ever fit as solidly as two seventh year centers would be fitting right now. 

Tyrus is not like Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich. His premium on draft day wasn't that he was this coachable, fundamentally sound kid who maybe lacked superstar talent. That's why Deng was able to jump right into a very good 04-05 team. Tyrus is a lot more like Chandler and Curry than he is like Deng or Hinrich. If Tyrus was in his fifth year right now, I have no doubt we'd be better than 4-11. Problem is, by the time he is in his fifth year, Wallace will be gone, and if we re-sign Deng and Gordon we won't have cap room to sign a 15 million dollar replacement.

So, you want an answer to, "why are we suddenly so bad?" We mortgaged a better future for a year of PJ Brown, who has always been a very productive, good player; a player you don't have to wait on at all. A player who you can put at a position and THAT position won't be the one to hurt you. PJ Brown has never been considered untalented, and yet he had all the veteran saavy of a younger Antonio Davis. He was a man. You can replace Chandler or Curry with PJ Brown and patch things up, because for Curry's superior talent, Brown can make up for things by being a very fundamentally sound player. 

Now we're so bad now because we're going to a "potential" player in Thomas when we already had a potential player who was a lot farther down the line of putting things together. We have to go to him. If we don't, we're not even close to as talented as Price and Nance's Cavs. If we do go to him, we have too many growing pains to contend for the East. 

Noah is different. He's more like Deng than he is like Curry. But, he's just not that good. He's okay, not someone who is going to come in and play like Curry or Chandler.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

Rhyder said:


> If our goal is a shot at the Championship within the next three years, I'd still rather have Wallace than Chandler (plus Pryz or Gooden).


I mean this as politely as possible, but this is the thing about the Paxson crowd that always puzzles me. They seem to think that an argument or discussion should be framed by opinion or preference rather than the facts.

What factual basis would you want to have Ben Wallace over Tyson Chandler based on? 

2006-07 PER 
Tyson Chandler 17.0
Eddy Curry 17.0
Ben Wallace 14.6

Why would you pay an old player 4-6 million more than players who were obviously on the upswing and have become better players?

Let me clue you in on something brother. Ben Wallace - was not the reason for the season in Detroit. In fact, when everyone's career is over, he'll probably be remembered as the fifth best player from that title team. If you have a player like Rasheed Wallace, who might make the hall of fame one day, and who is probably the best inside-outside scorer not to have true center size since Kevin McHale and Karl Malone in the frontcourt, yeah, Wallace can go clean house down low on the boards. 

Paxson's mistake with Wallace was the same as his mistake with Chandler.

In 04-05, Chandler was extremely effective when he could just come in, run, rebound, defend and look for tip dunks. Paxson ignorantly thought that that meant that somehow, Chandler could play Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis' roles (low post offense, and solid leader down low).

Then Paxson thought that Ben Wallace was the reason things happened in Detroit. IMO he was just a good domino near the end of the line of dominoes. He hardly started the domino effect.

Defense is nice, but even the best defenders couldn't win without offense. If you have to pick between the two, you pick offense. You have to score first, then you defend. If you can't score, the best defense in the world will have you losing games to good teams 77-69. Teams that contend do both. They must score and then defend. Good offense always beats good defense. If you can have both, fine. But you don't make your most important piece a defender. Never make a defense only player the Queen of your chess board. Even Russell averaged 14 PPG and could whip outlet passes down court with PG accuracy. David Robinson could score, and therefore led some decent teams. Scottie Pippen led a team that probably should have gone to the finals, but he also had low-end superstar scoring. Dennis Rodman? He never really won anything when he had a role as being the second best player on the team. He won in Detroit and Chicago. In San Antonio when it was just he and David, the team disappointed.

Chandler costs less money, he's much younger, and although you'll never mistake him for Eddy Curry, he's much more capable of offense than Ben Wallace. You definitely don't pay Wallace 15 when you could have had Chandler for 11.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Wow, first off, K4E has more cred than most of you so bashing him for expressing his opinion is akin to letting Paxson sign Ben Wallace.

As for the current state, we're not as bad as our record shows, but we are nowhere near where we should be. That alone begs questions. 

Honestly, it's the same way some of you bash Krause. What has paxson really done? We all agree the team he inhirited was abysmal. They couldn't have sucked any worse. So, you applaud him for being an Elgin Baylor type GM (Clippers)? 

I think it really is time to questions Paxson and Skiles.

Many here think TT & Noah are gonna be great and worth Pax's faith. Well, we have a coach who won't play them, and in my opinion, certainly won't develop them. I think that's a fairly huge concern.

So if you aren't gonna play or develop them, you'd better be willing to trade them. The question is will Paxson part with any of "his guys". Ironic that he replaced a GM who criticized for having too much faith in "his guys". So, have we really moved that far forward?

We are an average team that can occassionaly play above average. Unfortuantely, that isn't good enough in the East this year, and probably won't be for a while. And it certainly isn't good enough to compete for a championship.

The players have done nothing to help the situation, but as I had written two weeks agao, you can't fire players.

I applaud those who still think this is a ECF type team this season for their faith. I understand those who feel it's a lottery team. 

Come on Bulls...........Turn it on already!


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

chifaninca said:


> Wow, first off, K4E has more cred than most of you so bashing him for expressing his opinion is akin to letting Paxson sign Ben Wallace.
> 
> As for the current state, we're not as bad as our record shows, but we are nowhere near where we should be. That alone begs questions.


Well, you really have to think about who we are. Luol Deng has no first step. There literally has never been a superstar forward who couldn't blow by people dribbling the basketball. Pettit, Baylor, Havlicek, Erving, Bird, Pippen, Wilkins, James, etc. All of them could just man up with the ball in their hands and at least beat a guy enough to make another guy step in his direction. Bird did it because he could just pop it on you at any time.

So, once you get to that limitation on Deng, does this team really have anyone who is any better than a third option on championship teams? I mean, Luol Deng reminds me a lot of Horace Grant, the Bulls third dog if you remember, but who reminds you of even a BAD second option on a title winner? 



> Honestly, it's the same way some of you bash Krause. What has paxson really done? We all agree the team he inhirited was abysmal. They couldn't have sucked any worse. So, you applaud him for being an Elgin Baylor type GM (Clippers)?


Wait a minute now. I realize that the team Paxson inherited was not executing, but there was a lot of talent on that team. Enough talent that a GM should have say --- been able to trade Jamal Crawford and Jalen Rose for less talented role players while still retaining enough talent and especially a great enough depth of talent to win for years. Eddy Curry, like Luol Deng, is not better than a third option on title teams. However, when you have Curry AND Deng, AND Chandler, AND Gordon, AND Hinrich, now you're talking about a different animal. Now no one player has to be that good. 

Paxson inherited more lottery talent than most GMs will ever inherit in their lives. And not just players who didn't work out. Sure there was Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford and Jay Williams. But he also had a 7th pick and used it on a college peak player in Hinrich, and then there was Curry and Chandler. A GM who inherits six former lotto picks, three of whom are good, or if you want to get technical and assume that anyone could have blown a top 7 pick in the freaking 2003 draft, two good lotto picks, a lotto pick in a great draft and three disappointing lotto picks, one of whom had trade value, is no poor man. 



> Many here think TT & Noah are gonna be great and worth Pax's faith. Well, we have a coach who won't play them, and in my opinion, certainly won't develop them. I think that's a fairly huge concern.


But that's just it. I explained it three posts up. If you develop Noah and Thomas, how are you going to contend? Contending and developing young "potential" players like Tyrus Thomas are counterproductive ends. 



> So if you aren't gonna play or develop them, you'd better be willing to trade them. The question is will Paxson part with any of "his guys". Ironic that he replaced a GM who criticized for having too much faith in "his guys". So, have we really moved that far forward?


No, we haven't. We have a guy who is on the other polarity of the "go for broke" GM. Krause was too fanatical about talent, ignoring the reality that you must have some guys who can make your team execute. Krause wanted a track team. Paxson is too fanatical about doing things a certain way, and he ignores realities. He thinks what Bullsville thinks. He thinks that you can build a 1978 Notre Dame style team that shoots jumpers, rebounds their misses and plays hard defense, and contend for a title. In the NBA, if you don't attack the basket, you die, period. The easiest way to do it is with a player like Eddy Curry, because of rarity. If a guy can attack the basket at 285 lbs., then he's going to be able to do it in the Finals just as much as the regular season. A SF who attacks the basket will run into loads of great defensive SFs and be neutralized. OCCASIONALLY a special player like Michael Jordan, Dwyane Wade or Isiah Thomas comes along and can attack the basket consistently, even against the great teams, without being a true center. 

Paxson is like that guy who comes in when taxes are so low and says, "taxes are too low, let's be more like Sweden." And you do it and things go better for a lot of society for a while. Then he takes it too far and it becomes second century Rome where everyone is on welfare and nobody is motivated. 

There was a really good GM somewhere in between Paxson and Krause.



> We are an average team that can occassionaly play above average. Unfortuantely, that isn't good enough in the East this year, and probably won't be for a while. And it certainly isn't good enough to compete for a championship.
> 
> The players have done nothing to help the situation, but as I had written two weeks agao, you can't fire players.
> 
> ...


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the answer was the 04-05 team. It was a perfect blend of the best of Krause (Curry, Chandler) and the best of Paxson (jibby, heady players like Davis, Hirnich, Duhon, Deng, etc.). 

Eddy Curry, for anything bad that you want to say about him, is a lot like a young Patrick Ewing. Go look at I believe 1988, when Ewing only averaged 21 PPG and 8 RPG. What did the Knicks do? They surrounded him with mugging defenders like Oakley, Mason, Starks, McDaniel, etc. We could have employed that same strategy with Curry. Patrick Ewing was nothing special man. Compared to David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon, he wasn't ****, just like Curry isn't **** compared to Tim Duncan. But Ewing could get that running jumphook any time he wanted. He was a better rebounder and defender than Curry, but the league back then was superior in both regards to today, and it's not like he was David Robinson or Hakeem Olajuwon as a defender. He wasn't. 

This board, because Michael Jordan was such a great exception to the "centers dominate the NBA" rule, fails to realize that certain players win and certain players don't. And if you don't have a Michael Jordan or Dwyane Wade, and you don't have a Shaq or Tim Duncan, then a guy like Curry is probably your next best bet. It's a shame that he's wasting away on a team full of cancers. This board continues to put their head in the sand regarding what wins in the NBA. The rule is this:

When you have a player who can get consistent high percentage looks then everything else becomes easier.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MynameisTyree said:


> *Eddy Curry, for anything bad that you want to say about him, is a lot like a young Patrick Ewing.* Go look at I believe 1988, when Ewing only averaged 21 PPG and 8 RPG. What did the Knicks do? They surrounded him with mugging defenders like Oakley, Mason, Starks, McDaniel, etc. We could have employed that same strategy with Curry. Patrick Ewing was nothing special man. Compared to David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon, he wasn't ****, just like Curry isn't **** compared to Tim Duncan. But Ewing could get that running jumphook any time he wanted. He was a better rebounder and defender than Curry, but the league back then was superior in both regards to today, and it's not like he was David Robinson or Hakeem Olajuwon as a defender. He wasn't.
> 
> *This board, because Michael Jordan was such a great exception to the "centers dominate the NBA" rule, fails to realize that certain players win and certain players don't. * And if you don't have a Michael Jordan or Dwyane Wade, and you don't have a Shaq or Tim Duncan, then a guy like Curry is probably your next best bet. It's a shame that he's wasting away on a team full of cancers. This board continues to put their head in the sand regarding what wins in the NBA. The rule is this:
> 
> When you have a player who can get consistent high percentage looks then everything else becomes easier.



Eddy Curry has never shown a modicum of effort defensively... he makes a young Patrick Ewing look downright tenacious. And honestly... to say "He's like Patrick", just not defensively or on the boards... well, that's a pretty huge part of basketball. You know, defense, rebounding. 

As per that last bolded part... Eddy Curry has won 35% of the NBA games he's played in... that puts him in the bottom five of active NBA players. Eddy Curry is not a winner.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

chifaninca said:


> <b>Wow, first off, K4E has more cred than most of you </b>so bashing him for expressing his opinion is akin to letting Paxson sign Ben Wallace.
> 
> As for the current state, we're not as bad as our record shows, but we are nowhere near where we should be. That alone begs questions.
> 
> ...


To me, that bold part is total BS. Sure he posted here a lot. And they awarded him as a moderator and that's all good and dandy.

But nobody has the right to post one negative post after another. In fact, nothing but negative posts, for the last 4-5 years and there were a lot of anger from the pi88ed-off crowd because of his everyday-negative drivels. He is not just posting stuff like that NOW. He was doing it for the last 7-8 years. He is anti-Paxon form the day-1. He is against every single move Paxon made. He is agisnt every single pick Paxon made. He is against Bulls management, period. I sometimes wonder he is even FOR the Bulls.

Yes, you can argue that his post is just another his contribution for the board as materials to talk about. He is just doing his job. He is just expressing his opinion. 

But his constant and ever-present post ater post dictates the mode of this forum, which is always negative. And I am saying here he is big part of the reason why so many people got pi88ed off regarding the general tone of vioces anf debates here and packed up and left.

In fact, this will be my parting remark. I am sick and tired of reading his same old hate-post about Paxon, Skiles and in fat everything about the current Bulls. I am sick and tired of reading his poke at my beloved Bulls. He just doesn't know that when he makes fun at Bulls, he is doing that to MY Bulls too.

And then someone here made him a moderator. He comes on with vengence. With the authority(?) of moderator. I hoped that by becoming a moderator, his tone would change a littel bit for the sake of this community. Not him. I should have seen the light and left this froum when they made him a moderator.


Now I am doing that. I don't need to put myself in daily torture chamber of K4E. I don't need this and I certainly don't need his opinion on my Bulls.

Goodbye to you all. Not to you though, K4E.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

Dornado said:


> Eddy Curry has never shown a modicum of effort defensively... he makes a young Patrick Ewing look downright tenacious. And honestly... to say "He's like Patrick", just not defensively or on the boards... well, that's a pretty huge part of basketball. You know, defense, rebounding.


Okay, but here's the point that you're just not getting. The CHICAGO BULLS rebounded and defended excellently WITH HIM ON THE FLOOR. So what does it matter? I mean, he's no Patrick Ewing as a total player, but what centers are nowadays? Eddy Curry < Patrick Ewing just like 07 centers <<<< 88 centers. Eddy Curry is not Patrick Ewing and he doesn't have to beat Hakeem Olajuwon on the way to the finals.

One more problem with your logic. The Knicks didn't have Tyson Chandler coming off the freaking bench. 

And you want to talk about the players you love. Who is Kirk Hinrich? Danny Ainge? Who is Ben Gordon? Vinnie Johnson. Who is Luol Deng? Cedric Ceballos? I'd rather have a bigger Patrick Ewing with less rebounding and defense than have a player who I can say is every bit as good as Cedric Ceballos as the centerpiece of my team



> As per that last bolded part... Eddy Curry has won 35% of the NBA games he's played in... that puts him in the bottom five of active NBA players. Eddy Curry is not a winner.


He's proven that under the right conditions, he can win. AND the other point is, since he's proven that, who do you want as your primary offensive weapon? 

1. A 285 lb. center who shoots 58%
2. A combo guard who is very non-descript offensively
3. A small forward with no first step
4. Another combo guard who scores like Jordan one night and Quentin Dailey the next because he's about the streakiest player ever

Best part... we could have had Curry, and had all of the other players mentioned, AND had Andres Nocioni AND had Tyson Chandler. 

At the end of the day, Eddy Curry is way better than Ben Wallace and we could have had him for six million less.

You're honestly sitting there telling me that:

C Wallace
F Smith? Or maybe Thomas tonight? Or maybe it's Noah tonight?

Is better than:

C Curry, Chandler
F Smith, Chandler

Is that what you're trying to tell me?

BTW, Eddy Curry was 2-0 v. Ben Wallace in 04-05. He was 22 years old.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MynameisTyree said:


> Chandler costs less money, he's much younger, and although you'll never mistake him for Eddy Curry, *he's much more capable of offense than Ben Wallace*. You definitely don't pay Wallace 15 when you could have had Chandler for 11.


I was with you until u got THERE

Ben Wallace has much better hands and puts himself in better positions to score than Tyson.

I've seen Ben score in a NUMBER of different ways in Chicago. No, he isn't a scorer by any means but he actually can shooter a jumper, turnaround, up-and-under layup etc.

Tyson was a freethrow shooter and a dunker, PERIOD. Looking @ him 'try' to create his own shot was some of the worst I've ever seen in basketball, HISTORY.

Ballhandling - Wallace
Passing - Wallace
Steals - Wallace
Assists - Wallace
B-Ball IQ - Wallace
Screen setting - Wallace

He's just a flat out better player than Tyson but @ this point in time, Tyson IS surpassing him because of his youth, energy, athleticism. He KNOWS his role in N.O., they allow him to play throw mistakes but they also have competent offensive players and a PG that knows how to utilize a player with NO offensive game such as Mr. Chandler.

Tyson's last season in chicago got him shipped out of here, nothing else. It was a truely horrible year for him and it got much worse in the playoffs.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MynameisTyree said:


> Okay, but here's the point that you're just not getting. The CHICAGO BULLS rebounded and defended excellently WITH HIM ON THE FLOOR. So what does it matter? I mean, he's no Patrick Ewing as a total player, but what centers are nowadays? Eddy Curry < Patrick Ewing just like 07 centers <<<< 88 centers. Eddy Curry is not Patrick Ewing and he doesn't have to beat Hakeem Olajuwon on the way to the finals.
> 
> One more problem with your logic. The Knicks didn't have Tyson Chandler coming off the freaking bench.
> 
> ...


I have a lot of favorite parts of that post... but probably the best was when you decided who my favorite players were for me... and then made a couple of decent comparisons (Ainge and Hinrich, Vinnie Johnson and Gordon) followed by a terrible one (Ceballos and Deng).

Here's the problem I have with this board. I don't want to sit and dwell on the past... I see it as completely pointless... Eddy Curry will never win a championship, I could care less about Eddy Curry... the less being said about him on this page the better. I absolutely loved Tyson Chandler, he was my favorite player... I'd much rather have him than Wallace... but what is the point in repeating that out loud every day?

And, because I don't want to sit here and cry about not having Chandler and Curry I get labeled as some "Paxson lover" who is married to "the plan" and the current roster. This is not a world of absolutes.

So... Eddy Curry will never win a championship... he's not coming back to the Bulls... lets talk about what we can do to get where we all want to get, the forum would be better off.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

lgtwins said:


> To me, that bold part is total BS. Sure he posted here a lot. And they awarded him as a moderator and that's all good and dandy.
> 
> But nobody has the right to post one negative post after another.


Wow Stalin, that's awesome. See the Bulls boards have been so hilarious since about 03-04. People will try to run you off and find any excuse to brand you a "bad guy" because they don't like your stances and don't have the arguments based in fact to refute you. 

When did realgm or this board ever institute a rule against repetitive posts that rail against management? And who decides what is negative. To some people, he's just speaking the truth. 

Is this the card that you're having to play when you realize that you have no sarcastic Pro Paxson posts left because he's being turned into Michael McCaskey before our very eyes? 



> In fact, nothing but negative posts, for the last 4-5 years and there were a lot of anger from the pi88ed-off crowd because of his everyday-negative drivels. He is not just posting stuff like that NOW. He was doing it for the last 7-8 years. He is anti-Paxon form the day-1. He is against every single move Paxon made. He is agisnt every single pick Paxon made. He is against Bulls management, period. I sometimes wonder he is even FOR the Bulls.


Maybe the real problem is the Paxson crowd who gets angry. I mean, let's face it, you people really are very irrational just like the Krause crowd. Krause fan boys thought a track team could win a title. Paxson's fan boys think you can win a title by shooting jumpers, playing tough defense and rebounding your misses, because a freakin team that got Rasheed Wallace for free pulled it off against a Laker team that was begging someone to put the last straw on the camels back. And when someone throws the facts in your face, when someone reminds you that you need balance and that teams like Paxson's have never done anything except win games on the 1979 Notre Dame schedule, you try to drive them off and go running to the mods threatening to leave en masse if they aren't banned. 

Take me. How many times have I been banned for one reason? I've continuously handed you Paxson fan boys your ***es. Bullsville was practically crying and Sham was made to look a fool. Why? Because they're extremists, just like most of Paxson's fans. Instead of a balance between talent and jib, they try to lie to themselves about how talented "their guys" are. They try to pretend that having a team that junior high coaches everywhere can be proud of morally means that we can attack the basket enough to win in the playoffs. 

Do any of you even know why I get banned? Since about 2004, I've never been banned except for being a previously banned user. I was initially banned because I said something about Polish people in 2003. I've even acknowledged that that was disgusting behavior that I apologize for. I've acknowledged that I was going through a tough time and that my behavior was uncalled for. I get banned now because people like Jnrjr can't stand hearing the truth. They can't stand someone who will tell them exactly what wins and what doesn't win in the NBA, because they want to pretend that you can win a title with a 6'9" NON center and a bunch of combo guards and tweener forwards. 



> Yes, you can argue that his post is just another his contribution for the board as materials to talk about. He is just doing his job. He is just expressing his opinion.
> 
> But his constant and ever-present post ater post dictates the mode of this forum, which is always negative. And I am saying here he is big part of the reason why so many people got pi88ed off regarding the general tone of vioces anf debates here and packed up and left.


What, you think Bullsville and Shinky aren't negative? Why is it okay when someone likes Paxson, but not okay when they don't? 



> In fact, this will be my parting remark. I am sick and tired of reading his same old hate-post about Paxon, Skiles and in fat everything about the current Bulls. I am sick and tired of reading his poke at my beloved Bulls. He just doesn't know that when he makes fun at Bulls, he is doing that to MY Bulls too.
> 
> And then someone here made him a moderator. He comes on with vengence. With the authority(?) of moderator. I hoped that by becoming a moderator, his tone would change a littel bit for the sake of this community. Not him. I should have seen the light and left this froum when they made him a moderator.


Gee, now I guess you know what it's like to deal with every other Bulls moderator on the boards if you DONT like John Paxson's "way"...




> Now I am doing that. I don't need to put myself in daily torture chamber of K4E. I don't need this and I certainly don't need his opinion on my Bulls.
> 
> Goodbye to you all. Not to you though, K4E.


Man, maybe you'll take everyone else with you, including most of the moderators, and then people who like balance and don't need to have their opinions dictated by a "way" can go back to posting basketball. 

Hilarious. Like Bullhitter isn't negative...


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

The ROY said:


> I was with you until u got THERE


But why? Here are facts:

Tyson Chandler
11.1 PPG 53.5% FG

Ben Wallace
4.9 PPG 35.6% FG

One of them is 25 years old, getting better and making 11 million this year, and the other is 33, getting worse and making 14 million. 

Now those are facts. Are you looking at those FACTS and then coming back with, "well, I like the WAY Wallace does it more though"...? Cause if you're not, I don't know how you're NOT WITH ME there.



> Tyson was a freethrow shooter and a dunker, PERIOD. Looking @ him 'try' to create his own shot was some of the worst I've ever seen in basketball, HISTORY.


But remember, I'm an advocate of keeping the 04-05 team how it is and letting it grow. Nothing but a greedy owner prevented that from happening. I ask you, on that team, did we need Tyson Chandler to create his own offense? Or was everyone able to get theirs off of the play of Curry, Deng, Hinrich and Gordon offensively? 

On this team we need Wallace to create at least a little. On that team we didn't need that from Tyson man, that's what I'm saying. Neither of them is a creator at all. I mean, I see below, you arbitrarily decided who was better at what, but the facts just don't jive with that.



> He's just a flat out better player than Tyson but @ this point in time, Tyson IS surpassing him because of his youth, energy, athleticism. He KNOWS his role in N.O., they allow him to play throw mistakes but they also have competent offensive players and a PG that knows how to utilize a player with NO offensive game such as Mr. Chandler.


But we had that here. We had Curry, Deng, Hinrich and Gordon. We had Duhon, one of the better pure points in the league, running the point. 



> Tyson's last season in chicago got him shipped out of here, nothing else. It was a truely horrible year for him and it got much worse in the playoffs.


Yeah, it was a shame that Paxson thought that Tyson could take over for Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis. That was pretty stupid. Back then, I was getting banned for telling people BEFORE the 05-06 season that Tyson was not going to be able to take on Eddy's role. Oh and for saying something bad about Polish people on realgm in 2003...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I was with you until u got THERE
> 
> *Ben Wallace has much better hands and puts himself in better positions to score than Tyson.*


The point is he DOESNT score!


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

Dornado said:


> I have a lot of favorite parts of that post... but probably the best was when you decided who my favorite players were for me... and then made a couple of decent comparisons (Ainge and Hinrich, Vinnie Johnson and Gordon) followed by a terrible one (Ceballos and Deng).


Okay, so who do you think is a better comparison for Luol Deng? Please don't say anyone on par with Patrick Ewing. I'll put it to you this way:

Curry is closer to Ewing than Deng is to any SF who ever led an NBA finalist. Why? Because at center, you don't have to be nearly as skilled as you do at SF. Why? Because so many fewer players who can play are ever 6'11"+ 250+. Take any SG or SF who has led a champion and they are loads better at their position than Dave Cowens or Bill Walton ever were. 



> Here's the problem I have with this board. I don't want to sit and dwell on the past... I see it as completely pointless... Eddy Curry will never win a championship, I could care less about Eddy Curry... the less being said about him on this page the better. I absolutely loved Tyson Chandler, he was my favorite player... I'd much rather have him than Wallace... but what is the point in repeating that out loud every day?


Okay, but who says you get to decide what people talk about? The discussion is always determined by those having it. If you don't like it either disagree or dont' read it. Who says you get to play Stalin and shut people up?

We have to talk about Eddy Curry because trading him was stupid. And even playing with Stephon Marbury, he's closer to a title right now than we are. Eddy Curry + Luol Deng is a hell of a lot better than Kirk Hinrich + Luol Deng. In fact, if we had Curry, we could trade Gordon, Deng and Hinrich for Bryant because Curry and Bryant would be enough offense that we could start super defenders Duhon, Nocioni and Smith with them and still win. Bryant driving into the lane with Curry waiting to catch the ball two feet from the basket if you double Kobe? Yeah, I'll take that all day long over a bunch of combo guards and non-descript forwards.



> And, because I don't want to sit here and cry about not having Chandler and Curry I get labeled as some "Paxson lover" who is married to "the plan" and the current roster. This is not a world of absolutes.
> 
> So... Eddy Curry will never win a championship... he's not coming back to the Bulls... lets talk about what we can do to get where we all want to get, the forum would be better off.


Why though? Eddy Curry is a perfect example of why we can't continue to go forward with Paxson and Reinsdorf, and why those who feel that way should go on the record NOW. 

Are you suggesting that there aren't still people who beat the Krause horse to death every day? People on Bulls boards still ***** about Jerry not drafting Michael Finley. I love how when Paxson makes a mistake, "it's in the past." History repeats itself.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Thanks to Tyree, I got one last laugh. "people who like balance" Yes, that's you and those who think like you. Anyway, thanks for the one last laugh. BTW, are you Mike? Or someone who can't live without this basketball forum so he has to get another fake ID to join after being banned? I know you are not the first one who do that so no shame there. Enjoy your new days on the board and keep talking about how much you hate the Bulls. Sayonara.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

thebizkit69u said:


> The point is he DOESNT score!


But that is Bulls posters man. Facts and results don't matter if someone does something in a way that they like.

Ben Wallace doesn't have to have a FG% within 17 freaking percent of Chandler's if ROY decides that he feels that Wallace catches the ball more smoothly in his opinion. 

Guess what? I think that I do my job with more style than my boss who makes $350,000 per year. And therefore, even though I'm not actually and factually more productive than my boss, I have decided that I now make $350,000 a year.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> The point is he DOESNT score!


The actual point is, he's not supposed to. It's not his job which is why he's truely only VERY effective when he has a scoring big paired next to him.

He wasn't brought here to score but I don't think he felt he was supposed to flat out LEAD the team either. I don't think he truely realized what he left UNTIL he left.

Rip, Chancey, Prince, Sheed...all vets, all can score, all played D. They were all on the same page.

Here he's pretty much depending on the same types but much younger with less b-ball knowledge.

So, Chandler was actually better off here but it just seems as if the Bulls have NO idea how to get the best out of their bigs. Hell, even Rick, Flip & Larry got Ben to bring his A game the majority of nights.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

lgtwins said:


> Thanks to Tyree, I got one last laugh. "people who like balance" Yes, that's you and those who think like you. Anyway, thanks for the one last laugh. BTW, are you Mike? Or someone who can't live without this basketball forum so he has to get another fake ID to join after being banned? I know you are not the first one who do that so no shame there. Enjoy your new days on the board and keep talking about how much you hate the Bulls. Sayonara.


How do I not like balance? I didn't like the 02-03 team that thought that they could run the other team off the floor without dribbling or playing defense and I don't like a current team full of combo guards and tweener forwards because combo guards and tweener forwards have never won anything man. 

I like teams that have talent, get to the basket, and yet also have players like Chris Duhon, Antonio Davis and Andres Nocioni. IMO Antonio Davis was just as important to the 04-05 Bulls as Eddy Curry or Ben Gordon. How is that not a balanced opinion? 

I also don't think that a lot of these players wouldn't be very productive if paired with a DeAndre Jordan, Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley. 

I don't hate the Bulls my man. I love the Bulls, and that is why I hate that they've become the Cubs. See, I love the BULLS... not John Paxson or any one player or group of players, but rather anyone who helps the Bulls be better. Kirk Hinrich as a role player is something I like for that purpose. Kirk Hinrich as the face of the Bulls? Not so much. Why can't you get that? 

I don't think Luol Deng is bad. I just don't think he's as good as Dornado is. My problem is more with Dornado and fans like him who allow the Bulls to be constituted as they are than it is with Luol Deng. Deng would be a very nice SECOND option. Deng, Gordon, Curry and Hinrich would be enough, together, to give this team a special offensive threat. If Deng and Gordon were gone and Curry was here and Paxson was obsessed with building around Curry without enough talent to make it work, I'd be ripping that idea too.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

The ROY said:


> The actual point is, he's not supposed to. It's not his job which is why he's truely only VERY effective when he has a scoring big paired next to him.
> 
> He wasn't brought here to score but I don't think he felt he was supposed to flat out LEAD the team either. I don't think he truely realized what he left UNTIL he left.
> 
> ...


I thought Curry, Davis and Chandler gave us everything we needed and much more than Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas will ever give us. If you don't disagree with that, then what's the problem?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MynameisTyree said:


> How do I not like balance? I didn't like the 02-03 team that thought that they could run the other team off the floor without dribbling or playing defense and I don't like a current team full of combo guards and tweener forwards because combo guards and tweener forwards have never won anything man.
> 
> I like teams that have talent, get to the basket, and yet also have players like Chris Duhon, Antonio Davis and Andres Nocioni. IMO Antonio Davis was just as important to the 04-05 Bulls as Eddy Curry or Ben Gordon. How is that not a balanced opinion?
> 
> ...


Ok kid... you're getting delusional. All I said about Luol Deng was that Cedric Ceballos wasn't a good comparison. Other than that, all I've said is that Eddy Curry isn't a young Patrick Ewing.

Now.... from that you've deduced that I want the team to stay constituted as is and that I think Luol Deng is some kind of franchise player? 

How can I even have a conversation/discussion if you're making up my half of it?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MynameisTyree said:


> I thought Curry, Davis and Chandler gave us everything we needed and much more than Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas will ever give us. If you don't disagree with that, then what's the problem?


no problems here, just givin my two cents pimpin' lol

My actual problem IS John Paxson though. It took me a few years to realize that he doesn't truely know what he's doing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Jeez, a disgusting display of talking about posters instead of basketball. Par for the course for many I guess. Let's try to cut down on that gang. Thanks.

Anyway, back to Paxson's Bulls being rotten, man, what a mess.

When you look back on those old threads, there was a lot of hope. 

Pippenatorade was spot on about the Bulls team from a few years back. A perfect mix of Paxson jib and Krause talent. 

Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, Gordon, Curry, Chandler. Not bad. Oh well, that's over.

Now we have the 'ol Ben Wallace, at 4 years, 60 million, and a couple of raw kids in Noah and TT. Things are grim. 

Hinrich "the icon" is out to pasture. Gordon is showing what he is. Deng is mopey, broken by Paxson hanging him out to dry in the Kobe fiasco, and he may have a gimpy back.

Let's hope this gang of mediocrity can best the Bobcats tomorrow. Otherwise it could be a rough week for Paxson's team.

The best move may be to player dump for some hurt players, draft picks, get our draft pick, keep as much of our talented young core as possible, fire Skiles and move on.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

The ROY said:


> no problems here, just givin my two cents pimpin' lol
> 
> My actual problem IS John Paxson though. It took me a few years to realize that he doesn't truely know what he's doing.


And like Krause knew what he was doing when he had no Jordan to build around?

Let's not forget that Krause, not once, but twice tried to trade Pippen away. Once in the '94 Draft for Shawn Kemp, which Kemp had his best year in the 95-96 season, but not the season Pippen had. Then, for I believe in the '97 Draft, to try to get a lottery pick from that draft.

Then, when he did trade Pippen away, what did he get in return? Not a damn thing!!! When you are trading away your 2nd best player, an all-star, all-NBAer, all-defensive team, you should get something in return.

Also, who was it that traded Elton Brand, a guarenteed 20-10 player, for Tyson Chandler, oh yeah, it was Krause.

So, don't knock Paxson for at least getting a winning attitude back into the Franchise, don't knock Paxson for at least getting us to the playoffs and don't knock Paxson for his still learning as a GM.

It took Pat Riley how long as Vice President of the Heat until they won a title, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Riley take over the Heat in the 95-96 season. So that was a total of 11 years.

It took Joe Dumars 5 years to get the Pistons back to the top, but that was after aquiring veterans instead of buidling through the draft. Paxson hasn't had that luxury and has not had the luxury of getting a cast away like Rasheed, which can be great at times and can be the reason the Pistons lose.

It has taken Danny Ainge 5 years just to get the Celtics back into the top 4 of the NBA Eastern Conference, cause I still don't believe they are better than San Antonio, Phoenix, Dallas or Utah. Yet, we know how luck finally got on his side. First, they don't get a top 2 pick in the draft. Seattle gets number 2, knowing they are picking Durant as long as Oden goes first, they know Rashard Lewis will probably sign somewhere else, then why not start from scratch, so they trade away Allen to Boston. Then, KG, which vetoed the 1st trade to Boston, changes his mind after he will now play with Pierce and Allen. So, Kevin McHale decides to help out his playing pal from the old Celtic days and give him the former MVP pretty much for Al Jefferson. Jefferson is the only true young player that Ainge had to part with. Paxson went after KG before the '06 draft and he offered Deng, Tyson Chandler and the number 2 pick which McHale then wanted more. Paxson tried but McHale was not wanting to help out a former foe!! Plus, after this Celtic try at a Championship is done in 3 years (that is the max they have), expect the Celtics to fall back to the bottom as Ainge has not really proved he knows what he is doing, luck has been on his side, not him being a genius!

Look, I don't like the Bulls being in the position either but Paxson will do what he has to do to make changes. Remember, he went into the '03-'04 season with Krause's players and gave them a chance and they didn't perform, so he went in another direction. He picked the best players that was available at the time in the draft. He picked Gordon at 3, who went number 2, Dwight Howard! Don't you think he would have picked Howard if he had the chance. He picked Hinrich at 7, who went before him, well Lebron, Darko (don't you think Dumars would do this over), Carmelo, Bosh and then Wade! Yes, I agree that maybe trading away Aldridge for Thomas was a mistake, but he finally took a chance on a player with explosive talent. I'm not going to call Thomas a bust yet, please give him another 2years until we can tell what will happen. He has improved his shot, that shows some effort of improving so far.

Look, Boston hasn't been to the Finals in over 20 years and this is their real first chance at going back. It took the Lakers 9 years to get back to the Finals, it took them 12 years to get back on top. It took the Pistons 13 years to get back to the ECFs, 14 to being back on top. 

This is year 10 after that last title and actually year 4 with Paxson's team, '03-'04 was not his team, it was Krause's players. I want to see the Bulls win another title one day, but it doesn't happen over night!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Let me apologize..

I'm not really trying to say he has no CLUE as to what he's doing but when it comes to what compliments his players and what you need position by position in the NBA, it's as if he's a bit slower than most. Either THAT or he truely just BELIEVES 100% in his ideals.

My other issue is, it seems as if he DARES to be different. 'The NBA is changing so we don't mind going with smaller line-ups filled with tweeners'. He forgot though that to really take ADVANTAGE of that style of play, your team has to be OFFENSIVE minded with slashers and finishers on the break.

Instead of complimenting his 6"3 with a more defensive minded, slashing SG, he grabs a player smaller than his PG and labels them 'his backcourt for the next 10 years'. Mistake

Obviously, they knew they were getting rid of Chandler and that they'd throw everything at big ben. They also knew that there was a HUGE chance that he'd leave Detriot being on outs with Flip. So if you trade your 7"1 center, you won't have anyone close to that size on the roster and you also have to replace in your interior scoring since you've traded your other 6"11 big. So WHY would you draft a 6"8 tweener forward with no true position over a 7"0 scorer that runs the court even BETTER than Chandler? Mind you, I know I advocated bringing in TT because he was a very exciting young prospect and I also believed Pax would draft him. But his SMART mind should of been on his needs when he pretty much depleted his frontcourt. Aldridge is averaging 19 & 8 in Portland and god knows we needed that kind of big on our team even when Tyson WAS here. Mistake

I don't wanna harp on his screw-up's to much cause I've always been the fan that never really threw in the towel but it seems as if he DOES have little knowledge on how to correctly build a team. COMPLIMENT your players. This is why we can't get the most of them now. I firmly believe that Kirk, Noc, TT, Deng & Ben would be better in other uniforms.

But that's just how I feel, I'm good lol


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

so a previously "banned" member conjures up my name because of my ability to insult? WTF?

i do know who this "poster" (and i use the term to be PC) who again, likes to frame his "arguments" with poo-poo absolutes like stats are the only measure of an argument; similar to the way i read the semantic negativity from other ideas thrown out there. 

these posts seem to just want to incite, and are best served by being ignored because these guys are likely intelligent enough to know that's it's masked baiting, disguised with PER stats, and other bull**** that even coaches, players and GM'S don't use for squat, yet, for the sake of beleiving they have an upper hand in an internet argument, inflict them on fans who don't give a rat's arse about their perceived value in an discussion. all one has to do is watch the games to see what needs to be seen; stats be damned.

people who continuously rail on an organization's ability or inability to meet their ridiculously stringent demands of a "championship or bust" are setting themselves up for constant disappointment, which apparently in turn is transferred in simple, yet "absolute" rants about "failures" and who is deserving of employment by said organization. unfortunately for them, their rants are entirely limited to the 20 or so opinions who float around these forums (under different names, like i didn't know who tyree was, they kicked his punk a** of another forum for similar reasons). there's my only insult of this post.

so if posting a lot of drivel that deserves no response (i really don't know why some of these threads even go past one or two responses), gets "meaningful discussion" going, so be it. but i do see the amount of visitors increasing while the number of members dwindling. the quality of threads sucks d***, and even though the bulls aren't playing well, keep my name off of the threads that are as ridiculous as the ones that deal in stupid absolutes like the bulls are rotten; that's ONE person's opinion, and even if it was the minority of 4 or 5 here who agree, i'll offer this to the authors; paying for "rotten" product may afford you a license to vent on an innocuous internet forum, going to witness it makes you a sucker.

GO BULLS.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I was with you until u got THERE
> 
> Ben Wallace has much better hands and puts himself in better positions to score than Tyson.
> 
> ...


Fine post, and was also going to be similar to my retort. Most of those things Wallace is better at are intangibles that do not show up in PER. And yes they are visible, although not recorded. Chandler is a much better finisher than Wallace, however. That and a better FT shot are really the only things I see better about Tyson than Wallace on offense.

Defensively we need a guy who can bang down low--this isn't one of Wallaces strengths and it sort of has been exposed this season. However, Big Ben does a better job of it than Chandler did, despite the difference in height. Wallace creates turnovers and does so without fouling, a major problem during Chandler's last year here. Chandler is a better weak side defender than is Wallace at this point, and sometimes Wallace can make up for the difference in athleticism. This season, he hasn't done it very often to date.

Defending Wallace does not mean I am happy with his play so far this season. He has been giving up on plays and has not been hungry for rebounds on the defensive glass a lot of the time.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Stop trying to lowball everybody with trade offers.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Stop trying to lowball everybody with trade offers.


We'll get right on that.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Bump.

I thought they were rotten in December. I think they are rotten now.

The Bulls are rotten.

I know some people didn't Paxson's Year 5 Bulls were rotten. 

But, I think they were wrong.

Rotten to the core.

Where do we go from here? I'm at a loss. The road ahead looks bleak and the long 5 year journey behind us has more losses than wins.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> 95% of the fans on this board thought Pax was a genius. I thought he was a fool and said so. The rest is history.


Wow. Lots of truth.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Who the bleep cares. Let the person have their say. The PROBLEM with this board are the attacks on an emotional Bulls fan after a LOSS. Screw the politics and post harrassment.

Blow up the Bulls. You see Kobi doggin it all year b/c he was pissed about his circumstance? Hell NO! That's why he's a champ and Deng, Hinrich, Gordon are 2nd tier players. Wallce can and should be top tier. They all lack HEART.

Blow this frggin team up. They make me sick. 

Fire Paxson NOW! He has missed too many opportunities. If Jerry is the prob then Paxson must resign!

I hate Gordon. I hate Wallace. The Bulls stink. Deng is soft. Tyson's avg double double. OMG it makes me sick!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lorgg said:


> Blow up the Bulls. You see Kobi doggin it all year b/c he was pissed about his circumstance? Hell NO! That's why he's a champ and Deng, Hinrich, Gordon are 2nd tier players. Wallce can and should be top tier. They all lack HEART.
> 
> Blow this frggin team up. They make me sick.
> 
> ...


See, now that's the spirit!

Perhaps if more people felt this way about Paxson a few years back when it seemed liekly we'd end up in this very spot we would not be in the horrible mess we're in now.

The miserable middle. Ugh.

Where's the Paxson dusty phone image? Its a rite of passage this time of year.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps if more people felt this way about Paxson a few years back when it seemed liekly we'd end up in this very spot we would not be in the horrible mess we're in now.


People like you?



kukoc4ever said:


> Its nice that we signed Nocioni. I like the guy as much as all of you do. He’s gritty, gutty, a gamer, a warrior, etc.





kukoc4ever said:


> Hell yah.
> 
> I'm totally behind signing Wallace.


That's some fairweather fandom right there. Paxson makes smart moves when the team is playing well; but when the players start underperforming, we're all subjected to a torrent of complaints about the guy.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> See, now that's the spirit!
> 
> Perhaps if more people felt this way about Paxson a few years back when it seemed liekly we'd end up in this very spot we would not be in the horrible mess we're in now.
> 
> ...


Oh right, you knew all along. You even knew it a few years back. Even though a few years back the bulls had your man crushes Curry and Chandler. You knew all along back then that we'd suck today huh?

:rofl2:

Hold on let me dig my magic fortune telling globe out of my man purse.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't think the Bulls are rotten. Maybe the GM, maybe the players, maybe the attitudes of all of the above. 

But I don't think the Bulls are rotten. I'd not be a fan if I thought they were.


----------

