# Will the Bulls win a Division or Conference title in the next 4 years?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

With the emergence of LeBron and no Oden/Durant bailout, do you think our Bulls will win their division or make it to the Finals in the next 4 years?










What do *you* think?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Will the Bulls win a Division of Conference title in the next 4 years?*

Yup.

edit. Interesting that the orignator of the poll chooses not to offer an opinion/vote


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Will the Bulls win a Division of Conference title in the next 4 years?*



fl_flash said:


> Yup.


Are you betting on a Lebron injury or some type of divisional realignment?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Will the Bulls win a Division of Conference title in the next 4 years?*



kukoc4ever said:


> Are you betting on a Lebron injury or some type of divisional realignment?


Nope.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Starting next year the Bulls will win their division every year for the next 3 years. Barring injury of course. Four years from now is a bit murkey...

How's that for homer optomism.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Cavs are going to be mighty tough.

but I don't think LeBron's team is necessarily an unstoppable force, year in and year out, a la the Bulls Dynasty teams.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

The Cavs are a good team, but they're far from a dominating 55-60 win team. In fact, they showed no improvement record-wise from last season. I don't see how they're necessarily going to get better in the next 3 years. On the other hand, the Bulls can still easily add another 5 to 10 wins just based on internal improvement.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its tough to game where the Bulls will fall.

A lot depends on Tyrus and what Paxson can do via trade and the #9 pick. Landing productive big men is really, really hard. 

If the core is Kirk, Gordon, Deng with average play from the 4 and 5 I don't like our chances. Lebron looms large.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its tough to game where the Bulls will fall.
> 
> A lot depends on Tyrus and what Paxson can do via trade and the #9 pick. Landing productive big men is really, really hard.
> 
> If the core is Kirk, Gordon, Deng with average play from the 4 and 5 I don't like our chances. Lebron looms large.


LeBron is one man. If Flip had maybe put Tayshaun on LeBron instead of the 6'3'' Billups and if the Pistons looked like half the team they did against us, no one would be having this conversation. Shaq needed Kobe. Bird needed McHale. Jordan needed Pippen. I'll proclaim the Cavs as the next dynasty when LeBron gets paired up with another dominant player.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ben Wallace was better in the 2nd half of the season, so I'm not agreeing with the premise that he's ready to break down next year. He was still a very good player (6.9 pts, 11.5 reb, 3.0 ast, 1.96 blk, 48 FG%), certainly above average for his position. I think there's more support for the theory of Wallace "getting comfortable with his new team" than the "decline of Ben Wallace" in regards to his performance on the year.

Another point I'd like to make here, and one that's seemingly been overlooked, is Nocioni's injury at the end of the season. He was absolutely horrible in the playoffs. The Bulls are a much better team with a healthy Noc, and so, they're a much better team than the one that lost to the Pistons in the 2nd round (although I'm not saying they would have beaten Detroit if Noc were healthy). Nocioni was arguably our 2nd best player during the December hot streak. Just something to keep in mind, IMO.

I really don't like all these Noc-related trade proposals (well, outside of the ones for Kobe) because it seems people have short memories as to how good Nocioni was when healthy.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its tough to game where the Bulls will fall.
> 
> A lot depends on Tyrus and what Paxson can do via trade and the #9 pick. Landing productive big men is really, really hard.
> 
> If the core is Kirk, Gordon, Deng with average play from the 4 and 5 I don't like our chances. Lebron looms large.


Pessimism is proof of thoughtfulness. Particularly when its combined with constructive suggestions to avoid disaster or deal with current problems. 

Any thoughts on what the Bulls should do in the face of such undefeatable greatness like Lebron? After all, his aging team just won a playoff game in triple overtime by two points. It's obvious they will be dominant for a decade.

Frankly I still don't like Cleveland's chances of getting to the finals this year, much less future years. Detroit is the better team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Any thoughts on what the Bulls should do in the face of such undefeatable greatness like Lebron?


Short of turning back the clock, which is impossible, I think the best bet is to stand pat and hope Deng or Tyrus develop into a franchise altering star. I'm not so sure about that, but honestly, what are the other options?

If we can get a guy like Zach for Nocioni and pick, those are the types of deals we need to pursue. I'd like an above average player at all 5 positions, ala the Pistons. No playing Nocioni at the 4, as much as I love him. I know he's a "warrior" but he's not going to last playing at the 4 every night and does not give the team what it needs at that position. I'd also like a little more offensive punch down low. Even if it means taking on a guy who is not a stout defender. We're not going to land that perfect big man who is a stud on O and D.

I guess it was fun being a Cavs fan in the Jordan years.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

People are severely sleeping on Ben Gordon.

We are going to be in the finals next year as long as we avoid doing anything dumb. 

Next year:

PG- Kirk Hinrich- 16 PPG 8 APG
SG- Ben Gordon- 25 PPG 4 APG
SF- Luol Deng- 20 PPG
PF- Ben Wallace- 7 PPG 10 RPG 2 BPG
C- Joakim Noah- 10 PPG 8 RPG 1.5 BPG
---------------------------------------
Thabo Sefolosha- 9 PPG 
Andres Nocioni- 12 PPG
Tyrus Thomas- 12 PPG 8 RPG 1.8 BPG


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

If the Bulls want to take over as the best team in the Eastern Conference they'll need to find a #1 option offensively. Right now the way they're built, Ben Gordon is their franshise-player because he's the only one on the roster that can get his own shot. I think it's a mistake to rely that much on a guy that's only 6'2. That's why I still wish they would've taken Brandon Roy with their top pick last year because he can get his own shot at 6'6. Somehow they'll need to add a player with size that can dominate offensively. If they don't do that, I feel the Cavs are a slightly better team because of Lebron.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Put Zach Randolph on this team and they are a poor mans 86 Celtics team.

Poor Mans Parish = Ben Wallace
Poor Mans Bird = Luol Deng
Poor Mans Mchale = Zach?
Poor Mans Johnson = Gordon
Poor Mans Ainge or maybe even equal to = Kirk Hinrich (Ainge 86 playoff stats 15 ppg 5ast 4 rebs; Kirk 2007 playoff stats 12ppg 7ast 4rebs

You can switch Hinrich with Johnson as Johnson was their best defender and Kirk was our best defender. Like I said they can be a poormans Celtic type team maybe a better scoring version but not as good defensively.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Yes. I'd be surprised if we didn't win a division title. Big time surprised. Conference title is not as likely but I believe we will do it at least once. The question is whether we're able to finish the job that year or not...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Kukoc, what's this stuff about "the emergence of LeBron"? Like that's a surprise to anyone? From the moment the Cavs won the 2003 lottery, we knew this would be an obstacle for the Bulls for quite a while.

I said in the other thread, I'd be far more worried if they had another young stud coming up in their system. Currently that's not the case. It's a veteran oriented team + LeBron.

Edit: And sure we have LeBron to deal with, but I'm currently not seeing much else to be afraid of. All other East teams with a superstar are all very beatable.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

The other thing here is LeBron was statistically better last season. People say he's still improving, which is fine and all, but he certainly wasn't better this season than last year. Unless there are some intangible things where he got better, which I could certainly believe.

But if Deng put up 17 pts, 9 reb with a lower FG% next season, I'd pretty much bet people would say he's reached his ceiling.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Put Zach Randolph on this team and they are a poor mans 86 Celtics team.
> 
> Poor Mans Parish = Ben Wallace
> Poor Mans Bird = Luol Deng
> ...


You left out Tyrus Thomas. Anyway, the anologies are rather poor everywhere except the Bird/Deng comparison, which is reasonable.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Put Zach Randolph on this team and they are a poor mans 86 Celtics team.
> 
> Poor Mans Parish = Ben Wallace
> Poor Mans Bird = Luol Deng
> ...


Not even close


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> Not even close


Hence why I said Poor mans. NOT exact!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The worst day of fifty seven years in the NBA Parrish wasn't that poor


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

A resounding "YES!"

After all, the Bulls have the best GM/Head Coach combo in the EC (that's Eastern Conference, not Eddy Curry)

It won't be easy. The Cavs got so incredibly lucky to get James. I mean, the Cavs won 17 games in '02-'03 and get James, probably the best player of this generation. The Bulls won 17 games in '99-'00 and get who? Marcus Freakin' Fizer, that's who. 

Is this fair? Of course it isn't. With all the lawyers on this board, you'd think that someone would have filed some sort of suit for remedial relief. Since Fizer is no longer on the Bulls, I don't think that the Cavs should be able to play James against us. But will our esteemed barristers lift a finger to see that justice prevails? No, they will not. Why? Obviously, there's no money in it for them, that's why.

Anyway, sure, the Bulls will win something worthwhile in the next 4 years.:biggrin:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The Pistons are getting older and the Cavs only won one more game than the Bulls this season so I'll go with yes. I don't really understand all the LeBron talk. He's arguably the best player in the game and has been for a couple seasons now despite the fact that he had a mildly disappointingly regular season. He's still young so he'll likely get even better but it's not as though the Bulls are chalk full of veterans who have peaked.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> After all, the Bulls have the best GM/Head Coach combo in the EC (that's Eastern Conference, not Eddy Curry)


The Grizzlies had West and Hubie.

Paxson and Skiles < West and Hubie.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Grizzlies had West and Hubie.
> 
> Paxson and Skiles < West and Hubie.



I love Hubie, but it doesn't seem to me that West accomplished anything in Memphis. I'd pretty much label his tenure there as a failure.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Grizzlies had West and Hubie.
> 
> Paxson and Skiles < West and Hubie.


oy no.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Grizzlies had West and Hubie.
> 
> Paxson and Skiles < West and Hubie.


I'll continue to hope that Skiles doesn't turn 70 and retire because he's too old in the next couple years and that Pax doesn't make many personel moves as stupid as some of the ones West made in Memphis.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Grizzlies had West and Hubie.
> 
> Paxson and Skiles < West and Hubie.


And this is based on what?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'd pretty much label his tenure there as a failure.


I agree.

West is a better general manager than Paxson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> And this is based on what?


Track record.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Track record.


Consistent improvement is a bad thing?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> West is a better general manager than Paxson.



explain how Paxson has been a failure as GM. intrigue has taken me over here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> Consistent improvement is a bad thing?


Career loser. Nothing of note (div title, conf title, NBA championship) accomplished.

2 of the 4 seasons Paxson has been GM the team was poorer than the previous year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> explain how Paxson has been a failure as GM.


Nothing of note accomplished.

0 division titles.
0 conference titles.
0 NBA championships.
0 All-stars drafted.
0 All-stars acquired.
Career loser in the regular season.
Career loser in the playoffs.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nothing of note (div title, conf title, NBA championship)



how quickly are these things accomplished after being in the cellar? what's he supposed to do in that short amount of time? make the better teams in the league magically disappear?


also note the best record in his tenure couldnt be accomplished til he cleared the roster of your faves, no?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nothing of note accomplished.
> 
> 0 division titles.
> 0 conference titles.
> ...



i have a feeling you would find me to be bad in bed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> what's he supposed to do in that short amount of time?


4 years != short amount of time


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i have a feeling you would find me to be bad in bed.


This was your best post ever.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Career loser. Nothing of note (div title, conf title, NBA championship) accomplished.
> 
> 2 of the 4 seasons Paxson has been GM the team was poorer than the previous year.


My apologies. Didn't know you were a "regular season" guy.

Pax/Skiles inherited a certifiable doormat, non-playoff team. In the last 3 seasons, they've:

-made the playoffs and lost to a weak team
-made the playoffs and lost to the eventual champions
-made the playoffs, swept the defending champions and lost to the top-seeded EC team

Spin as you like, they're getting better.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> 4 years != short amount of time



in a dynasty driven league, when you're coming out of the cellar.... now we're in the final eight. i just dont see how that is not progress.

yes 4 years.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i just dont see how that is not progress.
> 
> yes 4 years.


Progress has been made, since the bar was set very low after Paxson blew up the team (after guaranteeing playoffs). 

Nothing of note has been accomplished.

What was Lebron James doing 4 long years ago?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> My apologies. Didn't know you were a "regular season" guy.


Paxson has a losing record in the playoffs.




> Spin as you like, they're getting better.


They are getting better. They have accomplished nothing of note.

I'm rattling off common metrics of success. championships. win-loss records. all-stars. Your list of Paxson accomplishments requires the "spin," not my benchmarks.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> What was Lebron James doing 4 long years ago?



i love it when i'm arguing with someone, and the best counterexample they can muster is something mega extreme. kind of like a poli sci major invariably invoking "What if Hitler..."

people who i know are more religious than me have called Bron messianic, so i'm gonna call this example you've given an exceptional exception.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I think its time to give Jerry Krause a call..


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> also note the best record in his tenure couldnt be accomplished til he cleared the roster of your faves, no?


My favorite Bulls since MJ

1.) Deng
2.) Artest
3.) Gordon


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> i love it when i'm arguing with someone, and the best counterexample they can muster is something mega extreme. kind of like a poli sci major invariably invoking "What if Hitler..."
> 
> people who i know are more religious than me have called Bron messianic, so i'm gonna strongly call this example you've given as an exceptional exception.


Well its easy for some people to choose the flavour of the month such as Lebron because he is still playing and playing great. If he weren't playing he would have chosen a different player and so on and so forth..


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> people who i know are more religious than me have called Bron messianic, so i'm gonna call this example you've given an exceptional exception.


Do you think 4 years is a short time?

Is 5 years a short time?

What about 6?

Lebron went from a high school kid to NBA Finals superstar in 4 years. Paxson has racked up a losing record in the regular season and in the playoffs, won 0 championships and acquired 0 all-stars.

4 years isn't a short time.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm rattling off common metrics of success. championships. win-loss records. all-stars. Your list of Paxson accomplishments requires the "spin," not my benchmarks.


you're calling Paxson a failure, and then listing all these "Zero ____"s as your convenient reasons.

may we then round up all the GMs who have these same 'stats' and conclude that you find 90% of the GMs in those four years to be failures?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think 4 years is a short time?
> 
> Is 5 years a short time?
> 
> What about 6?



I will talk to Celts fans, Knicks fans, almost anything-fans. how many you think would switch situations with us?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> may we then round up all the GMs who have these same 'stats' and conclude that you find 90% of the GMs in those four years to be failures?



I would be interested to see how many NBA GMs are still employed after 4 years of 0 championships of any kind, a losing record in the regular season and playoffs and 0 all-stars acquired.

Yes, please, round up the list. Go for it. I'd love to see it.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would be interested to see how many NBA GMs are still employed after 4 years of 0 championships of any kind, a losing record in the regular season and playoffs and 0 all-stars acquired.
> 
> Yes, please, round up the list. Go for it. I'd love to see it.


How many different teams have also won a championship in the last 10 years? Detriot, Spurs, Miami and Lakers? So im sure everyone other GM in this league might as well just quit if they cant obtain Lebron.

It wasn't Paxsons fault that he didn't draft Lebron as it wasn't the geninus of the Cavs GM that drafted Lebron either. Lebron would have been an allstar and future hall of famer regardless of where he was playing, it has nothing to do with your arguement of a GM doing his job.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> a losing record in the regular season and playoffs and 0 all-stars acquired.
> 
> Yes, please, round up the list. Go for it. I'd love to see it.



i would actually compile this list if you will agree to these three realities:

1) losing record in regular season stat is indicative of horrendousness of Pax's predecessor, not Pax

2) losing record in playoffs is not the same as "playoff failure," which the Grizz have been!

3) 0 all-stars acquired is like saying "zero pageants won" i.e popularity.



your measuring stick is flawed. that is what she said.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If Tyrus and #9 can develop then yes we can. If not then no conference title.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kulaz3000 said:


> It wasn't Paxsons fault that he didn't draft Lebron as it wasn't the geninus of the Cavs GM that drafted Lebron either. Lebron would have been an allstar and future hall of famer regardless of where he was playing, it has nothing to do with your arguement of a GM doing his job.


exactly. k4e uses Lebron in one example, but then eschews calling the GM that acquired Lebron a genius. 



I know the anti-Pax sentiment probably becomes something to grab for when you see the annoyingly giddy pro-Bulls press. i can see why that k4e countercultural position would be attractive; i think the Giangrecos of the world are slime who dont deserve their job as well!

but c'mon. Pax's success has come from only so-so draft slots. you have to have an appreciation for that... and appreciate the fact that we've milked our opportunities for everything we can.  when we had some free agent dough, we got the best guy on the market, and he put up above average #s.


this is why Pax has not been on the hot seat. GMs are punted when they miss opportunities, and i dont see you listing all the boats Pax has missed out on. just pretty much "why arent you spending 100 mil each year" and we're done. c'mon now !


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> They are getting better.


Agree. That's a big part of their job. If they can continue the trend, and I believe that they will, they may actually achieve something of note in the coming seasons.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> 1) losing record in regular season stat is indicative of horrendousness of Pax's predecessor, not Pax


The previous guy is the guy with all the rings and the winning record. Paxson is the career loser.

Paxson inherited a team he felt confident enough to guarantee playoffs with. 




> 2) losing record in playoffs is not the same as "playoff failure," which the Grizz have been!


Losing record in the regular season, playoffs, 0 all-stars acquired is failure. 





> 3) 0 all-stars acquired is like saying "zero pageants won" i.e popularity.


The best players in the NBA by and large make the NBA all-star game.

0 championships and losing regular season and playoff record = “zero pageants won” as well?





> your measuring stick is flawed.


You are an apologist and are the defender of a loser.

A winning record is a flawed measuring stick? Winning a championship of some type is a flawed measuring stick? Whatever.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> Agree. That's a big part of their job. If they can continue the trend, and I believe that they will, they may actually achieve something of note in the coming seasons.


I hope so.

If 4 years is "a short time" I sure as hell hope it does not take a long time.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think the Bulls will win the regular season achievements, but I don't think they can beat the Cavs in a 7 game series. So I doubt they ever actually come out of the east. They are basically what the Cavaliers used to be when Jordan was with the Bulls. A really talented team, without a transcendent superstar, forever doomed to disappointment.

I mean...the emmergence of Dan Gibson pretty much means you can no longer load the whole defense up on Lebron. And if you can't do that, you can't stop him.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The previous guy is the guy with all the rings and the winning record. Paxson is the career loser.


Krause inherited Jordan. he made some good moves after that, but again, you're ascribing genius to GMs who have had #23 guys fall in their laps.

let me ask this... would it have been possible for GMs who inherit Jordan/James types to be failures?




i actually dont think Krause was a bad GM, but i think the moves he made late in his career were absolutely worse than the ones Pax is making now. didnt he trade away your stated fave, Artest, and Miller, for nothing special?

compare Krause late-day moves with Pax's last few years then...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> didnt he trade away your stated fave, Artest, and Miller, for nothing special?


Artest was crazy. He needed to go.

Rose was a good enough player in his prime to lead his team to the NBA Finals and instantly made the Bulls a better team. I wish one of Paxson's acquisitions would lead the Bulls to the NBA Finals.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

here are the ways that GMs become success stories:

1) have a real bad team and draft a mega star. this is my favorite!

2) make smart FA acquisitions, smart draft picks

3) inherit an already great situation; rare.


now k4e (i guess) would say Pax isn't #2. but let me ask this... is there any way he could have been #1 or #3? I say no.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

OK K4E, it's time for you to go on record on the question you have raised in this thread.

Will the Bulls win a Division or Conference title in the next 4 years?

Yes or No.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think 4 years is a short time?
> 
> Is 5 years a short time?
> 
> ...


You also have to worry that DWade could reload with a real team in that same time. And Dwight Howard as well.

The Bulls are going to quickly find themselves as the loan team without a superstar. I mean...Raptors have Bosh even. 

In four years Lebron will be 26. And Illgauskas, Hughes, Snow, Marshall, and Jones will all be retired and/or gone.

Just using players they currently have:

Gibson
Pavlovic
Lebron
Gooden
Varejao

Sixth man: Shannon Brown

Not a bad core. And considering their owner likes to spend money, you can bet they'll have some other nice role players hanging around the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> OK K4E, it's time for you to go on record on the question you have raised in this thread.
> 
> Will the Bulls win a Division or Conference title in the next 4 years?
> 
> Yes or No.


Click on one of the vote number links. My vote has been there since I started the poll.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Losing record in the regular season, playoffs, 0 all-stars acquired is failure.
> 
> 
> A winning record is a flawed measuring stick? Winning a championship of some type is a flawed measuring stick? Whatever.



the 23 win season is a big part of your argument, and that was directly related to an overabundance of Krause guys. you have to acknowledge that if you're taking the argument seriously. 

we all know this here, but you apparently. except i know yr dodgin'


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> the 23 win season is a big part of your argument, and that was directly related to an overabundance of Krause guys. you have to acknowledge that if you're taking the argument seriously.


Actually, Paxson guaranteed playoffs with the team he inherited. Since Paxson guaranteed playoffs, it inarguably counts, even if one were to take the apologists stance, like you are.

The 23 win season was due to Paxson deciding to blow up the team a couple weeks after guaranteeing playoffs. NBDL guys and raw young players don't win in the NBA.

I have little doubt that the team would have improved once the schedule became softer, much like the 47 win team one season later. Logic dictates that when the schedule becomes noticeably weaker, a team should post a better record.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Kukoc, for the love of all that is good, I plea for you to stop calling Paxson a "career loser". 

1 losing season, 2 winning seasons, and one .500 season does not constitute a career loser is most people's vocabularies. 

By that argument, Paxson will be a "career winner" by the all-star break next season (after all, he's only 8 games under .500 for his career). Why should 1/2 of a season be the defining attribute to a person's career?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, Paxson guaranteed playoffs with the team he inherited. Since Paxson guaranteed playoffs, it inarguably counts, even if one were to take the apologists stance, like you are.





kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, Paxson guaranteed playoffs with the team he inherited.


Wow, this guarantee thing is a big deal? Here's a shocking counterargument: I find it meaningless!



The only reason you're counting the 23-win year so heavily is just so you can repeat "Four years!" instead of "Three years!"

I personally think the last three years, THE MOST INDICATIVE OF HIS TENURE, have been a franchise saver. Again, hate to agree with mindless media people, but they had to be right at some point.




kukoc4ever said:


> The 23 win season was due to Paxson deciding to blow up the team a couple weeks after guaranteeing playoffs. NBDL guys and raw young players don't win in the NBA.



Do you really think that Whatever Dupree is a main factor in why Pax should be fired?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Another problem I have with your stance: Why am I a Pax apologist just because I like having gone from cellar to the final eight? 

Can't I just like that success for what it is? Most fans are going to do that, instead of busying themselves about going against the norm to hot button it up on a message board.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> By that argument, Paxson will be a "career winner" by the all-star break next season (after all, he's only 8 games under .500 for his career). Why should 1/2 of a season be the defining attribute to a person's career?


Actually, I'll start calling him a "middling .500 ish GM" at that point.

I guess we can start calling him that now, since he's only 8 games under. 

Still, in 4 (short?) years he's lost more games than he's won and the team has become worse than the year before as many years as its become better. I'm not convinced we'll crack 50 wins next season and win a second round playoff series next year, are you?

Painfully average might be a better term. Decent but not great.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> My favorite Bulls since MJ
> 
> 1.) Deng
> 2.) Artest
> 3.) Gordon


This can't be true. The way you've been posting, everybody's guess would be

1) Curry
2) Chandler
30 Crawford

No? Then what is up with your obsession over them?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Another problem I have with your stance: Why am I a Pax apologist just because I like having gone from cellar to the final eight?


The team that Paxson inherited was not in the cellar. He felt strongly enough about it to guarantee playoffs.

The team of NBDL rejects Paxson chose to field in his first year was the one in the cellar.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The team that Paxson inherited was not in the cellar. He felt strongly enough about it to guarantee playoffs.
> 
> The team of NBDL rejects Paxson chose to field in his first year was the one in the cellar.



Can you list the Major Sins of Pax for me? I dont post here consistently enough to know your positions perfectly.

This playoff-guarantee, whatever it is... how high up does that rank? what is it indicative of, and what does it matter?

Also, should the decision to look at NBDL guys during your first year be a reason why you are fired as a GM? Plenty of losing teams just take a look. And some of the situations you're praising (i.e. Cleveland) have taken similar routes with regard to all-out tanking. I guess Pax just didnt tank well enough in your eyes?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Wow, this guarantee thing is a big deal? Here's a shocking counterargument: I find it meaningless!



Not a shock.

Lack of accountability is a trait of the apologist. 





> The only reason you're counting the 23-win year so heavily is just so you can repeat "Four years!" instead of "Three years!"


LOL. No, actually its because John Paxson has been the GM of the Chicago Bulls for 4 years. 




> I personally think the last three years, THE MOST INDICATIVE OF HIS TENURE, have been a franchise saver.


Why not just say last season was most indicative? That would make him look even better. I prefer to simply look at his time on the job, and not slice, dice and spin.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Can you list the Major Sins of Pax for me?


See post #35.



> Nothing of note accomplished.
> 
> 0 division titles.
> 0 conference titles.
> ...


"sins" is a strong word. Not the one I would use. Its only NBA basketball we're talking about here DengNabbit.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why not just say last season was most indicative? That would make him look even better. I prefer to simply look at his time on the job, and not slice, dice and spin.


The spin is looking at where the team is now, and saying "Paxson should be fired because he played Dupree four years ago."

Jesus!!


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> See post #35.
> 
> 
> 
> "sins" is a strong word. Not the one I would use. Its only NBA basketball we're talking about here DengNabbit.



I mean what are the reasons he should be fired. ie Curry should have been kept, Chandler should have been kept, he missed out on free agents x,y,z


the moves you have a problem with, not the misleading regular season record you're clinging so tightly to.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> What was Lebron James doing 4 long years ago?



What team is he the GM for?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I love how the first year of Paxson's tenure is supposed to mean something. I have no horse in this race si I could care less but the logic being used is flawed


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> I mean what are the reasons he should be fired. ie Curry should have been kept, Chandler should have been kept, he missed out on free agents x,y,z
> 
> 
> the moves you have a problem with, not the misleading regular season record you're clinging so tightly to.


K4E just doesn't like Paxon, period. From the day 1, it was like this. No matter what you said it won't change his stance on Paxon.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, I'll start calling him a "middling .500 ish GM" at that point.
> 
> I guess we can start calling him that now, since he's only 8 games under.


Fair enough. If he's only a .500 ish GM after next season, then he should be considered that now, IMO. But most people that I know usually form opinions season by season. You could also say that 1 losing season, 2 winning seasons, and one .500 season = .667 winning record. I mean, a bad season is a bad season is a bad season; why should a 23 win season count any more against him than a 33 win season (especially when a major reason for that was the motorcycle activities of a certain #2 overall pick)? It didn't affect the drastic improvement in the following years.



> Still, in 4 (short?) years he's lost more games than he's won and the team has become worse than the year before as many years as its become better. I'm not convinced we'll crack 50 wins next season and win a second round playoff series next year, are you?


Nothing is a guarentee in pro sports. The best you can do is attribute probabilities. And I think it's more likely than not that we get 50 or more wins next season. Most of our players are young and still improving. They're still learning to play together. There doesn't appear to be any major acquisitions on the horizon shifting power to the Eastern Conference (Rashard Lewis to Orlando being the most "scary"). We're adding yet another lotto pick, which few winning teams have the opportunity to do.



> Painfully average might be a better term. Decent but not great.


Average to me is losing as much as you win. Last year we were an average team (which played above average ball in the playoffs). This year we were well above average. Several statistical rankings (Hollinger, Sagarin) had us ranked as the best team in the East at various points in the season. Not sure what happened in the playoffs (lack of 2nd round experience? Big Ben injury? Mental breakdown?) but I think we were/are far closer to the NBA Finals than people realize. I don't see any teams primed to leap us in the standings, which leaves just 2 hurdles to overcome. One is the aging Pistons...the other is the Cavs team with the best player in the conference. I've stated in plenty other threads that we have the right pieces to get past both of them, so no need to elaborate. That's more than decent to me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> =
> the moves you have a problem with, not the misleading regular season record you're clinging so tightly to.


I'm not clinging to anything.

You're the one writing paragraph after paragraph claiming a man should not be judged by his time on the job.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> What team is he the GM for?


Do you think 4 years is "a short time?"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> This year we were well above average. Several statistical rankings (Hollinger, Sagarin) had us ranked as the best team in the East at various points in the season. Not sure what happened in the playoffs (lack of 2nd round experience? Big Ben injury? Mental breakdown?)


Come on Yodurk, you've been watching this game long enough to know that the playoffs are a whole different ball game than the NBA regular season.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would be interested to see how many NBA GMs are still employed after 4 years of 0 championships of any kind, a losing record in the regular season and playoffs and 0 all-stars acquired.
> 
> Yes, please, round up the list. Go for it. I'd love to see it.


Jerry Wests tenure as the Grizzlies GM.

Won: 194 Lost: 216 

Division Titles: 0
Conference Titles: 0
Playoff series won: 0
Playoff games won (of any sort): 0
NBA Titles: 0
All Stars Acquired: 0 (gasol was drafted in 2001 BEFORE West came on board)

curious...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The previous guy is the guy with all the rings and the winning record. Paxson is the career loser.
> 
> Paxson inherited a team he felt confident enough to guarantee playoffs with.
> 
> ...




You are a season ticketholder. In your estimation, are you wasting your money?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not clinging to anything.
> 
> You're the one writing paragraph after paragraph claiming a man should not be judged by his time on the job.



dont know what you mean by that last line at all.

i'm looking at the team he took over, and i'm saying all these things:


the current one is better. a lot better. with wins and losses, with future possibilities, with playoff success, almost everything you can think of.



now again, if we had missed out on drafting a Lebron, you'd have a point. if we used our free agent money on anything but the best free agent available, the year we had lots of it, you'd have a point.


but you refuse still to comment on the actual moves Pax has made, except to say that several of your favorite Bulls were drafted by him.... so i dont know how to grapple with all this straw man material here.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> Jerry Wests tenure as the Grizzlies GM.
> 
> Won: 194 Lost: 216
> 
> ...


Good catch. I really like to see K4E's answer and how he will do his spin job (with his sucess as Laker's GM and whatnot).

Especially since he already said

West > Paxon


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> It didn't affect the drastic improvement in the following years.


Actually, in year 3, the team became poorer. 

Dropping 16 million on Ben Wallace last season helped stop the bleeding, along with nice improvements from Deng and Gordon. Still though, nothing of note accoplished.

In the end, to be considered very good, one must win some type of championship. The division championship is pretty lame, but it would at least be a start.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You are a season ticketholder. In your estimation, are you wasting your money?


Its not much money and I enjoy NBA basketball. No. I file it under entertainment expense and I'm consistently entertained.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> In the end, to be considered very good, one must win some type of championship. The division championship is pretty lame, but it would at least be a start.


to be a very good owner, you cant fire your GM after they have made a bunch of excellent moves and improved the team record drastically.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Come on Yodurk, you've been watching this game long enough to know that the playoffs are a whole different ball game than the NBA regular season.


Of course, and the Bulls team I saw in games 1, 2, and 3 were not the same Bulls team that won 49 games. It was more like the Bulls team that stumbled into the all-star break against the Bobcats, or the team that started 3-9 and losing to mediocre/below average teams. In other words, they played about as horribly as I ever could've imagined. That'll get your brains beat it against the #1 seed, which it did. I was happy to see them play like themselves for the next 3 games. If they had played like that from the start, I think we would've won the series in 7. But I digress. My only point is, the best you can hope for sometimes is to merely _put yourself in the position to advance_. As I said earlier, nothing is a guarentee. The best team doesn't always bring home the trophy.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, in year 3, the team became poorer.
> 
> Dropping 16 million on Ben Wallace last season helped stop the bleeding, along with nice improvements from Deng and Gordon. Still though, nothing of note accoplished.
> 
> In the end, to be considered very good, one must win some type of championship. The division championship is pretty lame, but it would at least be a start.


LOL. Now you are really becoming a "straw man."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Jerry Wests tenure as the Grizzlies GM.
> 
> Won: 194 Lost: 216
> 
> ...


And he was let go. Justly.

West has accomplished something of note in the NBA as a GM. Paxson has not. 

Hey Fl_Flash, what was the Griz record in the previous 4 seasons before West arrived. Did West bring "improvement" to the Grizzlies?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, in year 3, the team became poorer.


I never denied that, I just said there was drastic improvement from that 23 win season. The subsequent 3 years were all very drastic improvments from that. (Unlike Krause who treaded water from 13, 17, and 15 wins respectively).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think 4 years is "a short time?"



This is in no way responsive to my question.

I think 4 years is not short or long. Somewhere in the middle.

In that time, he has drafted superbly, acquired the best free agent available, and procured a very talented foreign player before any other NBA team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I never denied that, I just said there was drastic improvement from that 23 win season. The subsequent 3 years were all very drastic improvments from that. (Unlike Krause who treaded water from 13, 17, and 15 wins respectively).


Paxson and Krause should not even be compared.

One has six rings and a banner hanging at the UC.

The other has accomplished nothing of note. Very, very average.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> In that time, he has drafted superbly,


4 lotto picks burned.
0 all-stars.




> acquired the best free agent available,


By paying him way, way more than he's worth.



> and procured a very talented foreign player before any other NBA team.


Nocioni is a solid player when healthy. I guess that's Paxson's best value-add move. Wow. It will be interesting to see how much Paxson values his prize acquisition this off-season.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And he was let go. Justly.
> 
> West has accomplished something of note in the NBA as a GM. Paxson has not.
> 
> Hey Fl_Flash, what was the Griz record in the previous 4 seasons before West arrived. Did West bring "improvement" to the Grizzlies?


This is toooooo funny. You ***** and complain about Pax's four year and compare him to a guy who's had almost 40 years under his belt. Give Pax the same amount of time and I'll bet he's gotten some hardware along the way. Or, to phrase it diferently - throw enough **** against the wall and some of it's bound to stick.

I'm not sure what you term improvement. Taking a team with talented youngsters, keeping them at 47-50 wins for a few years and then "improving" them to the worst team in the league? Is this your definition of a quality GM, I'll stick with the ones the Bulls have, thank you very much.

Finally, West wasn't let go. He resigned.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson and Krause should not even be compared.
> 
> One has six rings and a banner hanging at the UC.
> 
> The other has accomplished nothing of note. Very, very average.



Pax has never had a run as good as Krause had upon inheriting Jordan.

Pax has also never had a run as poor as Krause had in the years before his dismissal.


"And he was let go. Justly."


Which GM has performed better upon the moment in their careers they were given a starless, non-playoff team to work with? Be honest...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> By paying him way, way more than he's worth.



It's pretty hypocritical of you to have thought it was a great signing at the time and now lambast him for the very same move.

The Pistons were willing to pay Wallace a substantial sum of money, though not as much as us. Would that have been a terrible move?



With respect to your All-Star argument I guess I'd ask this: Do you expect anybody on the current roster to be an All-Star? If so, whom and when?

I think Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon all could do it. I'd expect at least one to do it next season.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson and Krause should not even be compared.
> 
> One has six rings and a banner hanging at the UC.
> 
> The other has accomplished nothing of note. Very, very average.


It's no wonder someone else in this thread labeled 4 years as a "short" tenure. In this context, compared to Krause's 18 years, it most definitely is. Ditto with Jerry West's 20+ years in managerial positions. Apples and Oranges. A more accurate comparison is someone with 4-6 years experience. How's Danny Ainge done up in Boston? Be lucky we don't have that guy.

It's all about sample size. You'll find an inevitable correlation between number of years in the front office and number of successful seasons.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> to a guy who's had almost 40 years under his belt. Give Pax the same amount of time


I'm sure many around this board would still consider that a short time.






> I'm not sure what you term improvement. Taking a team with talented youngsters, keeping them at 47-50 wins for a few years and then "improving" them to the worst team in the league? Is this your definition of a quality GM, I'll stick with the ones the Bulls have, thank you very much.


When all is said and done, who will be considered the better GM?

My money is on Jerry West. If you feel differently, fine by me. I think you will be wrong.



> Finally, West wasn't let go. He resigned.


LOL. And Stan Van Gundy wanted to spend time with his family. LOL. =


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> How's Danny Ainge done up in Boston? Be lucky we don't have that guy.


Bad. I think he should be fired (or perhaps forced to resign, LOL).

How is Danny Ferry doing?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> How is Danny Ferry doing?



Wow, embracing the straw man now, fully. At this point I feel I can go no further with this.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:



> It's pretty hypocritical of you to have thought it was a great signing at the time and now lambast him for the very same move.


It was a signing that had to be made. Even more so after the Chandler dump.

I'm glad we landed him, given the dire straits the franchise was in.

Still though, throwing an obscene amount of money at a player who clearly isn't worth it is no great feat.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Bad. I think he should be fired (or perhaps forced to resign, LOL).
> 
> How is Danny Ferry doing?


I actually typed Ferry's name and deleted it...but funny enough he inherited arguably the best player in the league in EXACT same fashion as Mr. Krause in 1985. 

Even so, I think Ferry's done a nice job. He should count his lucky stars that he inherited a nearly 30 ppg superstar player. Poor Paxson inherited a bunch of egos and losers.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm sure many around this board would still consider that a short time.


I don't even know what this means. Yet another non-response from you.




> When all is said and done, who will be considered the better GM?
> 
> My money is on Jerry West. If you feel differently, fine by me. I think you will be wrong.


I have no idea. I know that folks typically remember the last thing a person has done and West certainly didn't go out in a blaze of glory. He did great with the Lakers, no denying that. Whether Pax equals West's overall accomplishments, whose to say? Pax still has 20 or so years to try. Over the last 4 to 5 years? Pax takes that one in a landslide.





> LOL. And Stan Van Gundy wanted to spend time with his family. LOL. =


Spin it how you want. He wasn't fired. Period. End of story. You're the one who stated he was fired. I simply corrected you.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Wow, embracing the straw man now, fully. At this point I feel I can go no further with this.


Why only compare him to Ainge?

I guess its the same reason you don't want to look at Paxson's full tenure. 

Where's my list of GMs that still have a job after 4 years of a losing record, 0 all-stars acquired and 0 championships of any type?

Come on DengNabbit, WHERE'S MY LIST?!?!?!?!  (i don't think you'll provide one) LOL.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Spin it how you want. He wasn't fired. Period. End of story.


Yah, neither was Stan Van Gundy. LOL. He "resigned" too. LOL. 

Thanks for the quibble.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why only compare him to Ainge?


Ainge is a natural comparison as both he and Pax were hired in the same year, if I recall. There might be others hired around the same time, just not sure who they are. 

Ferry's tenure has been short (only 2 years, I think). His first summer was about re-signing Ilgauskas, and spending loads of cap space on Hughes and Marshall. He drafted Varejao and Gibson, both good picks.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why only compare him to Ainge?
> 
> I guess its the same reason you don't want to look at Paxson's full tenure.
> 
> ...


I told you that you'd only get the list if you accepted three points of reality, which you completely non-argued and denied.

i cant do research if you're going to stop arguing. one of your past strengths was rising above the jokesters on this board, but now you're dipping into that inkwell yrself a bit it seems. ive been away awhile though. maybe it was the 49-win season, i duno.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, neither was Stan Van Gundy. LOL. He "resigned" too. LOL.
> 
> Thanks for the quibble.


This isn't worth my time anymore. You claimed Jerry West to be superior to Paxson. You stated your criteria - winning record, All Stars, Titles - be they division, conference or league. I showed you over the same length of time, Jerry West has performed, actually worse, than John Paxson. At least Pax has gotten to the second round and had playoff victories. West has had NONE over the same span. Yet, West > Paxson. You like to cite Wests body of work. That's fine but last I checked, the past is just that - past. Over both mens current tenure John Paxson has run circles around the Great Jerry West. Argue against that, but of course you won't. 

I'm done here. 

Oh yea. I forgot. LOL


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, neither was Stan Van Gundy. LOL. He "resigned" too. LOL.
> 
> Thanks for the quibble.



West's refusal to work for the Lakers as he wants to spend time watching his son play seems to indicate the retirement is legitimate.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

EDIT no matter what.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> In four years Lebron will be 26. And Illgauskas, Hughes, Snow, Marshall, and Jones will all be retired and/or gone.
> 
> Just using players they currently have:
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure the Bulls will have five players better than whoever ends up being the second best player on that list four years from now.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why only compare him to Ainge?
> 
> I guess its the same reason you don't want to look at Paxson's full tenure.
> 
> ...


Jerry Krause, hired March 26, 1985 

First 4 seasons 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89 
Krause record first 4 seasons as GM. 167 - 161 .509 winning percentage
Bulls went from 50 wins in '88 to 47 in '89, a step back in the regular season
All-Stars acquired - 2 
Scottie Pippen - not until 89-90 season (not in time frame of the 4 years)
Horace Grant - not until 93-94 season (only appearance & not in time frame)
0 Division Titles
0 Conference Titles
0 NBA Titles

Somehow he kept his job after 4 years of no titles of any type and no all-star acquired?

And another one to throw out there, Elgin Baylor of the Los Angelos Clippers, has kept his job after each losing season. This is going back to the late 80s and early 90s Clippers, not the Clippers of the past few years.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> Jerry Krause, hired March 26, 1985
> 
> First 4 seasons 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89
> Krause record first 4 seasons as GM. 167 - 161 .509 winning percentage
> ...


Very nice...on that note, time to hit the books for the night. Peace. :cheers:


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Very nice...on that note, time to hit the books for the night. Peace. :cheers:


Thanks! :cheers:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, in year 3, the team became poorer.
> 
> Dropping 16 million on Ben Wallace last season helped stop the bleeding, along with nice improvements from Deng and Gordon. Still though, nothing of note accoplished.
> 
> In the end, to be considered very good, one must win some type of championship. The division championship is pretty lame, but it would at least be a start.


The team became poorer than it had been in year 2 under his stewardship, not poorer than it had been pre-hire.

Seriously though, the horse is dead. Stop. How do you feel about Spencer Hawes?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

If only Pax was smart enough to draft LeBron he could be a good GM.



kukoc4ever said:


> Artest was crazy. He needed to go.
> 
> Rose was a good enough player in his prime to lead his team to the NBA Finals and instantly made the Bulls a better team. I wish one of Paxson's acquisitions would lead the Bulls to the NBA Finals.


Jalen Rose led the Bulls to the NBA finals? Was he good enough to lead the Raptors to the finals too then? They were only about 30 wins short each season he played for them.



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, neither was Stan Van Gundy. LOL. He "resigned" too. LOL.
> 
> Thanks for the quibble.


So anyone who ever resigns from a coaching on GM position amid a lack of success has been forced out? Or do you have to be 79 instead of 69 for a retirement to be on the level? Also, do owners usually force GMs out and then keep them around to make pivotal decisions such as who to hire as a replacement and who to take in the upcoming draft?

The reality of the situation is that if on the day Pax was hired, you could look into the future and tell 100 Bulls fans where the team would be four years later, 99 would NOT react by saying "What a hack, I can't believe he still has his job." K4E, I guess you get the distinction of being that 1 in 100. The many fans who have the Billy Knights and Billy Kings of the world as their GMs aren't shedding any tears for us.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

jbulls said:


> The team became poorer than it had been in year 2 under his stewardship, not poorer than it had been pre-hire.


Personally, I can't figure out whether the argument is that Pax is a worse GM than Pax or that successful GMs show perfectly linear improvement in regular season win total throughout every year of their tenure.


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson and Krause should not even be compared.
> 
> One has six rings and a banner hanging at the UC.
> 
> The other has accomplished nothing of note. Very, very average.


Not to but my nose into a conversation mid-way-through, but Krause simply had to build around the best player of his generation and possibly of all time. Championships would have been seemingly a matter of time for any competent GM. While I will agree that Krause made some great moves he also made some very shoddy ones. Ones that ended the Bulls tenure at the top possibly too soon. For what Krause was given, he did an above average job. For what Pax was given, he has done an above average job.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> Somehow he kept his job after 4 years of no titles of any type and no all-star acquired?


As you pointed out, he had a winning record. He would not make the list. 

The list (still waiting on the ever wordy but non list providing DengNabbit ) was supposed to be GMs with losing records *AND* 0 all-stars acquired *AND* 0 championships of any kind.





> And another one to throw out there, Elgin Baylor of the Los Angelos Clippers,


Yah, see, that’s the kind of guy I’d expect to see.

But, just looking at one or two of these guys isn't really meaningful.

Where's the list?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Seriously though, the horse is dead. Stop. How do you feel about Spencer Hawes?



Decent O. OK D. No rebounding. We'll see how he plays out in the NBA. Not a lock to be in the league 5 years from now, IMO.

I remember how that plays out at the center position in this town. Somehow I think it will be different this time around though.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Decent O. OK D. No rebounding. We'll see how he plays out in the NBA. Not a lock to be in the league 5 years from now, IMO.


Also hearing that he doesn't have a heart problem is a plus.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Jalen Rose led the Bulls to the NBA finals? Was he good enough to lead the Raptors to the finals too then? They were only about 30 wins short each season he played for them.


Oh, did you miss the "in his prime" part?

He was the top producer on a NBA finals team.

His best year was age 28 with the Pacers and its been downhill since then.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

p_s said:


> Not to but my nose into a conversation mid-way-through, but Krause simply had to build around the best player of his generation and possibly of all time. Championships would have been seemingly a matter of time for any competent GM.


No one had even the slightest notion that MJ would be on the short list of greatest players of all time when Krause became GM of the Bulls. In fact, much of what was said about Jordan then (1985) could be considered uncomplimentary (too selfish, too much of a gunner, etc). 

Obviously Krause was fortunate to inherit Jordan. But it wasn't like he knew he was walking into a sure bet.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I also hearing that he doesn't have a heart problem is a plus.


Curry's heart problem has limited him to an average of 77 games played a season logging 30 minutes a night.

You should write a letter to David Stern. Someone should stop this. This is a young man's heart we're talking about here. You don't mess around with the heart.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry's heart problem has limited him to an average of 75 games played a season and 30 minutes a night.


Really? Wow, those numbers are exactly like Spencer Hawes's stats from the 2007-2008 season.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

This thread should be moved to the Games, Games, Games forum, btw.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

This thread has gotten pretty old. I'll contribute this one post, and then probably ignore it.

To answer the question of the poll, yes, I think the Bulls stand a good chance to win either a division or a conference title in the next 4 years. It's no guarantee, but I think the odds are greater than 50%, so I voted yes.

Detroit's future looks a little perilous, and we finished behind Cleveland by one win this season. So, I don't think it would be far-fetched at all for this team to nab one division title. I don't think a conference title in the next 4 years is far fetched either. Honestly, I don't see any behemoths emerging from the East in the next 2-3 years. 

To the overall gist that this thread has taken: There's probably not much left to say on the issue. Overall, I think Paxson is a good GM. He came into a bad situation, and has turned it into a very good one, that has a very good opportunity to stay that way for the foreseeable future, and he's done it the hard way since he hasn't been handed anything on a silver platter.

I think cherry picking superficial barometers to prove a point is pretty lame. You could just as easy phrase the question like, "In the history of the NBA, how many GM's have inherited a team that had not made the playoffs in at least 6 years, and made them playoff teams in 3 of his first 4 years, culminating in being one of the 5 best teams in the NBA?" And use that question to build an argument that Pax is an elite, all time NBA great GM.

In either case, you'd have a pretty arbitrary list of GM's, and an argument that is more or less rhetorical BS. In fact, by that measure, the only other GM who might qualify would be Chris freakin' Mullin, in a few years.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I think cherry picking superficial barometers to prove a point is pretty lame. You could just as easy phrase the question like, "In the history of the NBA, how many GM's have inherited a team that had not made the playoffs in at least 6 years, and made them playoff teams in 3 of his first 4 years, culminating in being one of the 5 best teams in the NBA?" And use that question to build an argument that Pax is an elite, all time NBA great GM.


The above is cherry picking.

Looking at winning percentage, championships (of any type) won and all-stars acquired does not seem like cherry picking to me. Those seem like legit metrics of success for a GM. Honestly, which ones would be head and shoulders better?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> I think cherry picking superficial barometers to prove a point is pretty lame. You could just as easy phrase the question like, "In the history of the NBA, how many GM's have inherited a team that had not made the playoffs in at least 6 years, and made them playoff teams in 3 of his first 4 years, culminating in being one of the 5 best teams in the NBA?" And use that question to build an argument that Pax is an elite, all time NBA great GM.
> 
> In either case, you'd have a pretty arbitrary list of GM's, and an argument that is more or less rhetorical BS. In fact, by that measure, the only other GM who might qualify would be Chris freakin' Mullin, in a few years.


Absolutely. Criteria that looks more favorably on Billy Knight because he signed All-Star Joe Johnson than Pax despite the fact that he drafted Lu and BG isn't terribly useful.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Yep. I'd say theres a good chance of it happening.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> isn't terribly useful.


Neither is a GM that can't win a championship of any type.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

You asked a question and almost everyone other than you answered YES. So can your end your rhetoric at then and move on. We got the point even before you started this thread (that you think we suck and our GM is s$%^) and we disagree. No point aruing further.

Whatever you presented as eveidences for your argument are lame at best to the people who disagree with you and heaven knows no matter what others say you won't change your rhetoric (23 win, playoff guarantee, 47 games win, no titles in 4 YEARS,etc.) UNTIL BULLS WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP.

My question to you is that when was the last time you feel good about Bulls as a fan? Or you are always this pessimistic about the your beloved Bulls. Since when?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> My question to you is that when was the last time you feel good about Bulls as a fan? Or you are always this pessimistic about the your beloved Bulls. Since when?


The Bulls are a nice, solid team. There is no reason to feel “bad” about them. They are what they are.

The lowest I’ve felt as a Bulls fan since the Hue Hollins call was the end of Game 3 against the Pistons.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The lowest I’ve felt as a Bulls fan since the Hue Hollins call was the end of Game 3 against the Pistons.


wow, so you did actually like those late Krause era teams...



a question: if John Paxson were in fact fired, how long do you think it would take other franchises would look at his body of work here, and pick him up?


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> As you pointed out, he had a winning record. He would not make the list.
> 
> The list (still waiting on the ever wordy but non list providing DengNabbit ) was supposed to be GMs with losing records *AND* 0 all-stars acquired *AND* 0 championships of any kind.
> 
> ...


Your reaching on this man. Wow, Jerry Krause's record of 167 - 161 and John Paxson's record of 160 - 168 , yeah, big difference there. You consider Paxson a .500ish GM, I consider Krause the same. 

How bout this, Krause's production without Jordan in the mix, let's check that.

93-94 55-27 No Division Title, No Conference Title, No NBA Title
94-95 34-31 No Division Title, No Conference Title, No NBA Title
'99 13-37 Same, Same, Same
99-00 17-65 Same, Same, Same
00-01 15-67 Same, Same, Same
01-02 21-61 Same, Same, Same
02-03 30-52 Same, Same, Same

That's a total of 185 - 340. 

I believe Pax has done a great job considering that he didn't inherit a team with a player that could win you 20 games by himself and take your team to the playoffs. Only 7 losses seperate Pax and Krause after their first 4 seasons, not bad without a true superstar on the team.

Oh, you wanted to know how Danny Ferry is doing in Cleveland, why don't you ask Jim Paxson, the real person who built the current Cavs. Only players he didn't really bring in was Hughes, Marshall, and Gibson. Read Sam Smith's article from this morning.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> Your reaching on this man. Wow, Jerry Krause's record of 167 - 161 and John Paxson's record of 160 - 168 , yeah, big difference there. You consider Paxson a .500ish GM, I consider Krause the same.


Paxson is a .500ish GM. (under .500 ish)

There is no "considering" about it.

I guess Krause is as well, if you take some strange subset of seasons, but one would only do that if they are slicing and dicing to foster some agenda.

Why not just look at their time on the job? Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm not a Jerry Kraus fan, but he did do a few good things. One of the things that's not mentioned very often is that he hired Phil Jackson from the minor leagues to coach the Bulls.

Since then, Jackson's coaching record has been nothing short of amazing.

In 16 years the teams he coached never had a losing record. On average his teams have won 70% of their regular season games (57.4 wins per season).

His teams have made the playoffs every year he has coached. On average his teams have won 70% of their playoff games (average record 11.2W - 4.8L).

Finally, his teams have won 8 championships. That means his teams win it all 50% of the time.

That ain't all luck and superstars. The guy is a great coach.

So, drafting Scotty Pippen was a good move, but picking Jackson to coach put Jerry Krause's name in the United Center rafters.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson is a .500ish GM. (under .500 ish)
> 
> There is no "considering" about it.
> 
> ...



in deciding when you will a fire a GM, do you care at all about "what they did in the most recent season" or similar 'minutiae' ? what they did when they had the biggest level of control over the team's makeup?

cant believe i'm even needing to ask questions like this, but i guess the question stands.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Neither is a GM that can't win a championship of any type.


Guess that makes about 25 of them who should be canned. Honestly, I wouldn't follow the NBA if I thought 90% people involved in the league were losers.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson is a .500ish GM. (under .500 ish)
> 
> There is no "considering" about it.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not slicing and dicing, I'm showing the jobs that each GM has done without a NBA megastar, such as Michael Jordan. In the seasons between 93-95, before Jordan came back, Jerry Krause still had Pippen on those teams and in 94-95, the Bulls were 3 games above .500 before the Indiana game on March 19, 1995.

Yes, over period of time, John Paxson can't hold a candle to Jerry West or Jerry Krause. Each has more on their resumes over a 20 year career, yet Paxson is only going into year 5 of running this team. From what he has accomplished in the 4 years, I believe he is doing a good job and deserves praise for taking this team out of the basement. Jerry Krause inherited a playoff team when he took over and had to a player to build around. John Paxson had to clean house, there was no player to build around for him.

Jerry Krause was a .500ish GM his first 4 years and yet he was a "Winning GM" in your eyes. Those 7 games that seperate them pretty much comes down to the bounce of a ball, a shot made, or a stop on defense. Here let me refresh on some games from this season

2 18 point lead blown to the Nets.
The 1 point loss to the Grizzlies.
The 1 point loss to the Raptors at home.
The 11 point lead blown to the Raptors.
The 14 point blown lead to the Warriors in Golden State.

There is 6 games that could change John Paxson's record to the better and like I said, not bad considering he doesn't have a player that could win you 20 games in a season by himself. 

If you feel Paxson is a failure at being a GM, that's great, how bout we put you in that position, cause we all know you could turn this Franchise back around. 

Go get Jalen Rose back for us, cause he was the leading "Scorer" in the Finals for the Pacers, he was the reason they got there. Larry Bird, Rick C., Dick Harter, Reggie Miller (the true leader of the Pacers), Rik Smits, Antonio Davis and Travis Best had nothing to do with them getting there, cause they didn't lead the team in "Scoring." Which is the most important part of the game, being the leading scorer of a team. Scoring means Superstar.

Oh yeah, how bout Danny Ferry? Did you forget to ask Jim Paxson about that?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> Go get Jalen Rose back for us, cause he was the leading "Scorer" in the Finals for the Pacers, he was the reason they got there.


Actually, I was looking at NBA EFF, which isn't perfect, but looks at a lot more than scoring.




> Oh yeah, how bout Danny Ferry? Did you forget to ask Jim Paxson about that?


Danny Ferry is in the NBA Finals. The haters can hate, but he has won a conference championship.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> There is 6 games that could change John Paxson's record to the better and like I said, not bad considering he doesn't have a player that could win you 20 games in a season by himself.


This reminds me of 'ol coach Wanny for Da Bears.

Aaaap. We would have won the game if it wasn't for those 4 bad plays. Aaap.


I'll look at w/l record, all-stars, championships and other very common, accepted measures of success. 

You can continue to write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of slicing, dicing and spinning. That's cool. To each their own.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> in deciding when you will a fire a GM


Who is talking about firing Paxson other than you?

where's my list?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> You can continue to write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of slicing, dicing and spinning. That's cool. To each their own.


Don't attack the poster. Keep it about basketball.


----------



## Headfake98 (Dec 10, 2006)

93 - 94 unfair comparison - suprise no jordan
99-02 unfair comparison - jordan retired, team screwed. no options


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

> Division Titles: 0
> Conference Titles: 0
> Playoff series won: 0
> Playoff games won (of any sort): 0
> ...



K4E, if we had been Toronto last year, we would have gotten out of the zeroes column here. Does that mean you would prefer we had really lost two more games last year? you'd kept Paxson unde different CIRCUMSTANCES because he lost two more games, and thus did something "of note." after all, the state you seem to have liked living in as a Bulls fan was "47-wins," so maybe my comment isnt irritatingly sarcastic here

Of course you could say that you like Toronto's future better than ours, but then again you're not doing the hard data, non-spin analysis which can only be accomplished by judging GMs on the Win # and the Loss #. and that is the best analysis there is!


if the toronto example was given before, my apologies, i cant read it all, but i'm drawn to compete.


----------

