# Why I'm angry



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, I've got a few things I want to get off my chest going back to the offseason that relate to some of the stuff that was directed at me personally and more generally things that tick me off about the current state of the Bulls. 

Over the summer, it was variously said that I was blinded by hatred, just seeking attention and "fame" for myself, or just wanting "publicity" or something like it for the site by being so very negative on many of the Bulls moves. In the Jay Marriotti sense, I guess.  *I'd first like to say that this is NOT what I'm angry about*, but I think now is a good time to address it. 

Most obviously, I don't hate this team. I love the Bulls and I want them to win. It just kills me to sit through something like last night. Some folks have said they like to see the team "growing" and "overcoming", and that too much winning is "boring" and I don't begrudge anyone else their version of what's enjoyable about being a fan or playing a competitive sport. But to me, that's not what's enjoyable about watching or competing in things. I mean, it is, but it is in some ancillary way. In the main way, I think success and excellence are virtues. They are things that are enjoyable to behold in and of themselves. I don't expect the Bulls to constantly be at the MJ dynasty level or anything, but we're so far beyond that now that we're pining to just be mediocre. And our kids on the court are just plain being routed. There's no excellence to be found in that, and I don't think any growing or overcoming either. It's just a repeated series of ***-kickings that leave you numb to it after a while.

Regarding the personal attacks I've taken for being critical of the Bulls and specifically Paxson, Skiles, and Reinsdorf, I don't care much, but I find it pretty ironic that they were also couched in terms of me wanting to somehow score points or achieve notoriety for criticizing them. If anything, the opposite is the case. Despite me really not liking what they're doing, I've been very concerned that my opinions have caused some people to leave the site because they refuse to divorce my personal opinions (expressing which is the whole point of the site) from the fact I have an "official" (if overstated) role. And unfortunately, I think that fear has been well founded. But the point is, I want this site to be great and I want people posting here who (respectfully, intelligently, and compellingly) disagree with me. To the extent that being negative about this team chases people away, I've been very concerned that I need to shut up. And that's personally pretty frustrating to deal with, although it's not what's really ticked me off.

What really ticks me off is that, far from being too negative, I really like this team, it's players, and its fans. And it's horrible to see them put in a position to fail, both in the short run and the long run. I'm not anti "everything Paxson". I appreciate the players I think who really "play the right way" more than the others. I love rooting for guys Kirk, Luol, Andres, Duhon, AD, and Griffin. I want those guys to succeed. I understand that they are fiercely competitive guys who want to win, and who hate to lose, and it makes it that much harder to see them lose. I hate seeing fans I've seen here, smart guys who care a lot, peel away one-by-one over time because they're sick of it.

And I'm angry because it didn't have to be that way. For all the recognition now that Tyson and Eddy are busts, that Ben Gordon was maybe not the wisest pick, that 35 year old shooting guards not named MJ are bad bets, that you can't put a zillion rookies on the court and expect to win on "esprit d'corps", we had opportunities to avoid this mess. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure things out. We all knew it, we just all hoped that we'd be the "exception to the rule" regarding each of these rules. And by continuing to hope against hope, we dragged things along and exaccerbated our mistakes by missing what opportunities remained to stop the bleading.

At this point, for example, we've got few options left with Eddy Curry. Even though we might have had bad options for trading him in the offseason, we have even worse options now, and tremendously more pressure to do it. We also have less potential gain, since we no longer have the options of trading away the $14M millstone that was ERob. By buying him out and officially waiving Pippen, we in many ways reduced even further our options for dealing Eddy and committed ourselves to paying more dead money. What a disaster... we foreclosed options AND cost ourselves $10.5M to boot. Why? Because we continued to hope... when all information that Paxson had available to him should have suggested otherwise, to have faith in Curry.

And what options do we have left with Ben Gordon? I'll not go into the fact that he wasn't "my guy" and just say that I do want him to succeed, and badly. I don't want to trade a guy who I think could be successful, and I think he can be in the right situation. But I don't see how he can succeed in this environment, and I can't see how we're going to change the environment to one he can succeed in.

In truth, my biggest fear and what makes me most angry is that experience has shown time and again that getting your *** handed to you repeatedly makes players stop caring. It's not just that it hurts players I like to root for, but it makes them, over time, players I don't like to rooth for. Players who get routed, never play in meaningful situations, and try to do "too much" develop bad habits that don't get broken, whether they're trying hard or not. That's the real issue. You simply can't put players in such a wrong situation and then expect them to "play the right way". There's nothing complicated about that formula either. Teams of rookies and old men simply get obliterated. There's no learning experience there, no fighting chance to get better. We had the chance to make real improvements in that regard and waved them off because of poor judging of talent, bad expectations, and underestimating the problems we've faced.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> OK, I've got a few things I want to get off my chest going back to the offseason that relate to some of the stuff that was directed at me personally and more generally things that tick me off about the current state of the Bulls.
> 
> Over the summer, it was variously said that I was blinded by hatred, just seeking attention and "fame" for myself, or just wanting "publicity" or something like it for the site by being so very negative on many of the Bulls moves. In the Jay Marriotti sense, I guess.  *I'd first like to say that this is NOT what I'm angry about*, but I think now is a good time to address it.
> ...


As usual thats an excellent post Mike. You always do have a pretty good read on things.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mike,

I am not just saying this because our views, especially recently, have been so similar, but with the exception of an occasional throwaway post during a game thread (no one's more guilty of that than I am), everything you write is thoughtful, judicious, and well-reasoned. 

People are well within their rights to disagree with your conclusions (why anyone would at this point is beyond me), but if they disagree with HOW you present your thoughts, regardless of your so-called official capacity here, then I don't see the point of having a message board, period. This is a place to express opinions, and you do it as fairly and above-board as anyone.

I am in the exact same boat -- I thoroughly enjoy rooting for the Bulls. I am invested in them far more than I ought to be. When the team has the worst six-year record in the HISTORY of the NBA, acquiesence isn't the first thing that comes to my mind. It's human nature to rail against any of the many things that are broken.

I hope those valued posters who are staying away come back soon. They should know that none of our "anti-Bulls" posts are personal (unless they are Jerry Reinsdorf). Everyone here wants the Bulls to do well. You can't otherwise explain the sheer volume of posters on a board for a team as horrible as ours.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Just want to say that I always respect your opinion -- just don't always agree.

This was one game. Phoenix is a great club this season. Their small line-up is exactly what Eddy can't deal with. He's big enough and smooth enough in the post to get around big defenders, but quickness kills. Also the fact that he hasn't played in a game in a long time. I hate to start lining up excuses -- he sucked -- but it's a little earlier to be devastated by a loss to one of the best teams in the league so far.

Gordon is a bust already?! Ouch. Maybe we should give him 5 games before we trade him? Or six.....

I'm not sure what you expected, *Mike!* This team is not perfect, but we knew that. There will be some incredibly ugly games, but there will also be some nice surprises this season. Get off the roller-coaster, take some lithium, and ride out the bumps. Over-all, we've got a better roster this season. We will finally get an answer on Eddy and Tyson and then move on from the whole "Twin Towers" era and move forward. If, as it is beginning to look, Skiles has no idea how to set up an offensive scheme, we move to a new coach.

Third game of the season is just a little early to be completely distraught by this team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DC --

Nice post. I have some of the same feelings, largely because I'm viewed as someone with a negative view much of the time.

My intent is not to be negative, but merely to reflect the reality that is the team. A mirror of sorts.

Like you, I'm a Bulls' fan. I've been one since the 1960s. I'm loyal to all the Chicago teams, even though I haven't lived there for 20 years. The fans are terrific, and consistently loyal through thick and thin.

If I come across as angry, it's because we chase our good players out of town and rag on them after the fact. We rag on other teams' good players as if the ones we keep are the only worthwhile ones.

Sports, to me, are like soap operas. It's not any one game that matters, it is the continuing drama that unfolds over the course of a season and even what goes on between seasons and across several seasons. Equally important to me are the players' performance on the field or court and the personalities of the players themselves. It's just as interesting to me that Marcus Fizer is a father (at a young age), or how hard he's working to recover from his injury, as it is that he scored 20 points in some game.

As a Cubs fan, I've seen guys like Andre Dawson and Sammy Sosa (and several others) join the team and become fan favorites. The team didn't win, but we had quality ballplayers and quality human beings to root for. 

As a Bulls fan, I've seen similar guys, like Artis Gilmore, who were simply worth the price of a ticket. 

As a Bulls fan, there are no Dawsons, Sosas, or Gilmores. Those guys are the Brands, Millers, Artests, Crawfords, etc., who are now on other teams. This Bulls franchise is just so hard to root for in its current situation.

Posters here talk about "cancers" a lot, even though they've probably never met the players. I don't believe any of our players have ever been a cancer... Surely we've seen enough players come and go in the last 7 seasons to figure it out. 

There is a cancer, and it's management. 

There is a real battle for the soul of the franchise and it's truly about "organizations win championships" vs. "players win championships." Bozo the Clown can run a great organization if his players are Jordan, Pippen, Hakeem, Stockton and Malone. Red Auerbach would look like Bozo the Clown if his players are the NBDL crew we had on our roster last season.

I hope people realize that in all my posts, I've never been consistently for firing a player or players. Trading or consolidating our talent is not firing the guys... I have been consistent in wanting to win, and wanting management that realize it's a players' game and for once I want to hear the GM, whoever it is, say "WHATEVER IT TAKES" or "JUST WIN, BABY."


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Mike,

great post as you often do!

Everyone posting on the board regularly is a Bulls fan and that should not be forgotten.

Being negative isn't always bad. Every change begins with a feeling of something needing change or it may become a bad situation. Even the good and great teams have their areas to be criticized in.

Post your thoughts, your opinions, your disgust and oh yeah, the winning lottery numbers so we can buy this team back from Reinsdork!

Fire Paxson and Skiles!

God bless the Bulls....and no one else.
(Movie reference)


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Mike,
> 
> I am not just saying this because our views, especially recently, have been so similar, but with the exception of an occasional throwaway post during a game thread (no one's more guilty of that than I am), everything you write is thoughtful, judicious, and well-reasoned.
> ...


I couldn't have said it better than ScottMay did. 

Mike, your posts (and the posts of some of those who seem to have left) are the reason I began frequenting this board. This board is a great way to vent about something that all of us take very seriously (too seriously?) and a great, well, "forum" for intelligent debate. And, most of the time, I think that's what it offers. 

I, too, am frustrated with management and players alike and I wish I could be more positive more often. However, I don't feel bad being "negative" at all as long as I think through my post first and assure myself that I do, indeed, have the overall good of the team and its fans in mind. I don't know much about the personal attacks you've received but I'm sure they're unwarranted--and I'm sure they've been made by people every bit as frustrated with the situation as you are. It's hard on everyone, this kind of losing, and it's not going to clear up anytime soon. That's hard to take...and hard to accept. 

Keep on posting like you do, though, and the BBB community will at least be one enjoyable part of being a Bulls fan. Maybe the only part that IS enjoyable...I was at the game last night...*sigh*


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree Wynn. Any Bulls fan who went into this season not realizing there were going to be nights like last night is not being realistic.

The Bulls shot 33% from the floor last night and 4.8% — 1 for 21 — from 3-point range. There are not too many teams that are going to win shooting like that.

The question, then, is: what is the reason for the poor shooting?

a) Bulls players are just not good shooters

b) key players all had off nights

c) players are taking poor shots

d) Skiles' offensive scheme is not getting players good looks

e) opponent played outstanding defense

I'd have to watch a tape of the game again to determine which of these were contributing causes.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I agree Wynn. Any Bulls fan who went into this season not realizing there were going to be nights like last night is not being realistic.
> 
> The Bulls shot 33% from the floor last night and 4.8% — 1 for 21 — from 3-point range. There are not too many teams that are going to win shooting like that.
> ...



All of the above!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> At this point, for example, we've got few options left with Eddy Curry. Even though we might have had bad options for trading him in the offseason, we have even worse options now, and tremendously more pressure to do it. We also have less potential gain, since we no longer have the options of trading away the $14M millstone that was ERob. By buying him out and officially waiving Pippen, we in many ways reduced even further our options for dealing Eddy and committed ourselves to paying more dead money. What a disaster... we foreclosed options AND cost ourselves $10.5M to boot. Why? Because we continued to hope... when all information that Paxson had available to him should have suggested otherwise, to have faith in Curry.
> 
> And what options do we have left with Ben Gordon? I'll not go into the fact that he wasn't "my guy" and just say that I do want him to succeed, and badly. I don't want to trade a guy who I think could be successful, and I think he can be in the right situation. But I don't see how he can succeed in this environment, and I can't see how we're going to change the environment to one he can succeed in.


Eddy Curry has played one bad regular season game, Mike. This did not ruin his stock in the eyes of the GM's who still covet him. Around the deadline there will be some veteran laden playoff team looking for some kind of post scoring who might be interested in Eddy. People can trick themselves into believing they will change him. And maybe they will. We've lost some stock, but I think it was a worthwhile risk waiting for him to pan out, which he obviously hasn't done yet.

As for Ben, you're right about his nearly impossible situation, but three games does not a career ruin. He'll find his nitche with this team, especially when Kirk seems to foul out of most games. He will find minutes at both guard spots, and over time will impress. In a terrible game yesterday, his drive and lefty layup yesterday was the kind of agressive move I've been wanting somebody on our team to make for a long time now.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Third game of the season is just a little early to be completely distraught by this team.


Each of the last six seasons has effectively been over this early. Given the results so far, the utter lack of measurable improvement in our franchise cornerstones, and the upcoming schedule, why would it be premature to say this season's a wash as well?

You have a lot more patience than I do. The Bulls are guilty until proven innocent as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

First, thanks everyone 



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I agree Wynn. Any Bulls fan who went into this season not realizing there were going to be nights like last night is not being realistic.


Respectfully, I think this sort of misses what I'm getting at. Going into the season, I *DID* expect this coming. I did expect things to be ugly. That's precisely why I've been so negative. I don't like watching this kind of thing, both because it's unpleasant and itself and because I think it hurts us in the long run.

We had the opportunity to make it less ugly. We had chances to make things better and we simply didn't do it. Of course I agree that things weren't going to be all roses and winning, but we had the chance to at least set a solid foundation from which to improve. Three games into the year, things are in utter and complete disarray and any number of panic moves are likely to be made to stabilize the situation. And quite possibly necessary to do so.

And doing this now is going to be more costly and less likely to succeed than doing it several months ago was. And as best I can tell, waiting was a fools hope in the first place.

Now maybe that sounds like crying over spilled milk, and maybe it is. But this is the second year in a row. Haven't we learned from our mistakes just a little bit. Like the Polish Army, we charged into battle against tanks mounted on horses and swinging sabres.

Due to the inexorable obviousness of the situation at this point, something is going to have to give. We're going to have to make some changes, and basically do what we can to salvage respectability. Everyone recognizes that at this point.

The criticism I have is with not recognizing it sooner. For the Polish Army soldiers, once they're in the battle they can jump off their horses, take cover, try to find some guns and start firing back. But once the battle has begun, it's a hell of a lot harder to do that. People are shooting back at you. You would have been a lot better off getting guns and establishing secure positions before the battle started.

Of course you try to do what you can to improve, but wisdom ought to come from recognizing that the mistake was to get yourself into such a mess in the first place. When I see some recognition of and responsibility taken for that, it'll be a happy day.

I'm sure as hell not holding my breath though.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Its not easy being a CommMod, and you do a good job of it Mike. Been there, its a thankless job actually.

As for the other stuff about people leaving the board, I know full well because I came close to leaving as well. Even posted on the 'other' board from time to time though it just didn't feel the same for me. Here's the thing. IMO the banter on this board got extremely personal recently, and though negativity is encouraged and actually drives discussion (if you think about it).. the feeling for me about the board was that it was a convergence of opinion rather than a divergence. It was as if, any dissenting opinion from the vocal majority here was bashed and ramrodded to pieces alongside with a personal rub here or there. When that 'vocal majority' has 'official' site titles and responsibility, its asking for trouble. JMHO.

I have never seen (sans MikeOF) a user leave a message board due to the fact that a team is losing or that management stinks. However, I've seen many users leave a site due to issues with the Mods and Admins of a site, whether personal or public. So when an established user leaves a site, there is almost always an underlying conflict with a Mod or Admin, that's just the lay of the land. That is, unless your SN is bullhawk and you've been exposed... :grinning: So my encouragement to the 'officials' on this site is to post frequently, encourage discussion, and continue to take the high road. Your posts are put under the microscope, so to speak, as representative of the site as a whole. Unfair as it seems, that's the realm of thought from Joe Poster.

These are JMHO. :shy:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think it is important for all of us to remember that we are ALL Bulls fans. Most of us have been Bulls fans for many years. We may disagree from time to time on players or on what management does but the bottom line is we are ALL Bulls fans here. I think we all need to be mature enough to realize that not everyone is going to share our opinions and if they did the world would be a boring place. I've come to accept that a lot of people disagree with my opinions and despite that I still have nothing but love and respect for them as fellow Bulls fans.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Why I'm angry*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddy Curry has played one bad regular season game, Mike. This did not ruin his stock in the eyes of the GM's who still covet him. Around the deadline there will be some veteran laden playoff team looking for some kind of post scoring who might be interested in Eddy. People can trick themselves into believing they will change him. And maybe they will. We've lost some stock, but I think it was a worthwhile risk waiting for him to pan out, which he obviously hasn't done yet.


Not me. I see where you're coming from, but when I try to think about it, I just come to a very different answer. I mean, the basic question is the level of risk vs. reward by waiting a bit more on Eddy. So lets think about that:

First, establish the likelihood of reward by waiting a bit more:

What's the probability that, after 3 years of sucking it up, another 3 months causes the light to suddenly (and permanently) go on. It's got to be almost exceedingly low. I can't think of any player for which this has happened.

What's the probability that we get a player we want back now (when playoff teams and everyone else have rosters, chemistry, and continuity set and need to actually undertake the task of winning games) vs. the probability we could get such a player several months ago, when more teams were more flexible about what they could do.

The first point suggests that, at best, the reward would be the same, and the second suggests the reward would be lower.

Second, establish the likelihood of risk by waiting a bit more:

What is the risk that additional time spent will lower his stock? Well, I'm quite a bit more pessimistic than you are. Sure, it's only one game, but its three more months of sillyness other GMs have on record. If anything, that increases the likelihood we won't find an acceptable trading partner. Even if there were only 3 guys who were interested in Curry before, losing one of them significantly hurts our options (by 33% in a very abstract sense).

And more generally, as teams see him play, it hurts us. The bottom line is that he's not very good. Over the past few weeks, there's been speculation of a trade to the Suns... if you were a Suns fan, after watching the way he got abused last night, could you justify having him on your team? Man, I know it's only one game, but people are watching. And when you see your team absolutely throttle a guy, it sends a message. The more teams see that, the fewer will trade for him.

So put all this together... you've reduced your likely reward and increased your likely risk... all on what appears to me to be a very small chance that Eddy would undergo a miracle turnaround. 

Those are VERY bad odds we played, and not surprisingly, we've lost. In doing so, we not only jeopardized having something of value for that particular asset- Curry- but we've endangered our other assets by putting them in more difficult situations. 

The bad thing about losing a $5000 bet isn't just that you lose $5000, it's that you also have to go home and make a house payment too. Losing the money causes both direct pain and indirect pain - and while you can't quantify the latter as easily it's often worse.



> As for Ben, you're right about his nearly impossible situation, but three games does not a career ruin. He'll find his nitche with this team, especially when Kirk seems to foul out of most games. He will find minutes at both guard spots, and over time will impress. In a terrible game yesterday, his drive and lefty layup yesterday was the kind of agressive move I've been wanting somebody on our team to make for a long time now.


I hope so... I don't know what the hell to do with him. I don't want to give him up, but I don't know that he'll find that nitch either. I think we just have to struggle through there unless someone knock our socks off with an offer.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I can say I do get a little tired of the negativity on this board. That being said, I certainly can't deny that it's well placed. It's tiring and frustrating watching my home team being a joke and a laughing stock of the league. It's frustrating because there's nothing I can do about it.

I look at a game like last night and I tend to think that if this team was 1-1 going into this game, the reaction here wouldn't be quite so dour. It's really a sad statement on a franchise when the first game of the season is a "must win" game. For these guys, it's like it sets the tone for the season. 

What I expect is that there will be four or five games where all the guys mesh. Everybody just clicks. On those few games, this team would beat any team out there. I also expect about 10-15 games where nobody clicks. Last night was one of those games. Pretty much everybody looked bad. I don't know if that was so much the Suns playing really well (they looked somewhat flat to me) or just a bunch of young players all having bad nights at the same time. The remainder of the games, I expect a few guys to click while others don't. For the most part, we lose those games also. It's going to be a long year.

I simply can't begrudge anyone having a negative attitude towards this team even if I choose to try to find _ some _ kind of positive spin on this team. It's getting increasingly harder to do tho! These guys may come out a play the Clippers great and come away with a win. They may completely stink it up again or they may simply play well enough to just win or just lose. For me, that's the hard part is not ever knowing what team is going to show up. Some of that is youth. Some of that is coaching. Some of that is management/ownership. This team has lotsa problems. I hope they get righted soon!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Its not easy being a CommMod, and you do a good job of it Mike. Been there, its a thankless job actually.
> 
> As for the other stuff about people leaving the board, I know full well because I came close to leaving as well. Even posted on the 'other' board from time to time though it just didn't feel the same for me. Here's the thing. IMO the banter on this board got extremely personal recently, and though negativity is encouraged and actually drives discussion (if you think about it).. the feeling for me about the board was that it was a convergence of opinion rather than a divergence. It was as if, any dissenting opinion from the vocal majority here was bashed and ramrodded to pieces alongside with a personal rub here or there. When that 'vocal majority' has 'official' site titles and responsibility, its asking for trouble. JMHO.
> ...


VD- This is exactly why we miss having you as a mod/CM. Well, most of us do... TB#1 hates your ****ing guts. (Just kidding about that  ).

I probably shouldn't have taken things down this (attention attracting) road in the first place, except it was to some extent relavent before I unleash my frustrations. My intent (although less eloquently expressed than by VD) isn't to railroad anyone's opinion or to make this an entirely negative place. Hell, what I'd really like is for someone to convince me that I'm wrong, full of it, and that everything is going to be alright. To point out to me that the problems I see aren't problems or they're being recognized and addressed. And please, if you can do that without slipping any illegal substances into my bloodstream, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Mike,

You add a lot to the board when you stick to basketball. But...you can't stick to basketball because you're a CommMod. And sometimes your passion for keeping the board 'right' causes you go too far in the way you try to correct percieved problems on the board.

Other CommMods and mods get the same thing done with a minimum of fuss.


Just my opinion,

gb


(see y'all in 5 days)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> VD- This is exactly why we miss having you as a mod/CM. Well, most of us do... TB#1 hates your ****ing guts. (Just kidding about that  ).
> ...


The particularly frustrating thing for me right now is that I was willing to give Paxson's Way a chance. His hand-picked coach, his hand-picked players, his hand-picked agenda. We were supposed to work hard and be competitive, and grow from there.

It's not working. As I said in the Phoenix game thread, if the team with superior talent is also going to play a lot harder and a lot smarter, then where does that leave the grinder team? In an utterly hopeless spot.

And for the millionth time to those who say "it's early" and "it's Eddy's first game" and "we weren't going to do anything anyway," here's the thing: there is very little to be learned or gained in an NBA season that's over before it starts. That's not how good teams are built. We've seen it before. We know how it ends.

So now the word's out around the league -- the Bulls stink again! This means we can expect another year of no breaks from the official. This means we'll get no "fair" trade offers for any of our players. This means we're less attractive to free agents or players unhappy with their current teams. It's a snowball effect and yes, it does start exactly this early, and yes, that NJ game was a must-win. It's the NBA -- the margin for error is exactly that small.

My question for the "stay the course" crowd is: just how much longer are you willing to put up with this? We've got the circus trip coming up, so it's merely a formality of when this season is officially a wash. Are you willing to put up with this for one more year? Two? Five? Ten? As long as it takes to stumble upon another Jordan? Pick a number and let us know.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The particularly frustrating thing for me right now is that I was willing to give Paxson's Way a chance. His hand-picked coach, his hand-picked players, his hand-picked agenda. We were supposed to work hard and be competitive, and grow from there.
> ...


I understand where you are coming from but I honestly don't see any reasonable alternatives to staying the course at this point. We won't get reasonable value for our assetts, there aren't any significant free agents we can sign, there really is nothing else to do with the exception of maybe firing Skiles and going for coach #4 and I don't even know if that would be wise at this point.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> VD- This is exactly why we miss having you as a mod/CM. Well, most of us do... TB#1 hates your ****ing guts. (Just kidding about that  ).
> ...


Mike, you were the best CommMod when I was there, and the best since I left the Mod Squad. As I said before, its a thankless job and tough one at that. You have to take heat from all sides all the time. Frankly, it became too tough for me to handle. You have handled your stint extremely well and I applaud you for that.

Just wanted to clear the air with you Mike (just to make things certain) that I hold no ill will in any way, shape or form. Rather, I have nothing but respect for the job you've done here as well as the top notch quality of your posts. So please keep posting.

What's in the past, is just that.. in the past. Hopefully, some that have left will come back. I was sad as heck to see ScottMay go about a year ago, but he's been a great contributor lately and it makes the boards that much better. The beat goes on... :yes:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but I honestly don't see any reasonable alternatives to staying the course at this point. We won't get reasonable value for our assetts, there aren't any significant free agents we can sign, there really is nothing else to do with the exception of maybe firing Skiles and going for coach #4 and I don't even know if that would be wise at this point.


I agree . . . the Bulls are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. But it also stands to reason that since this has gone on for so long, it can go on indefinitely. I mean, the league is not going to stop and take off a couple years so we can get our **** together. We have to do it ourselves, and sometimes an unconventional move like trading Eddy Curry for Bonzi Wells or whatever can be just the thing to effect real change and get a turnaround kick-started.

It's the Costanza Corollary: "If everything you've done to this point has been a failure, then the opposite will likely be a success."


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

Hopefully there's some more room on this ledge for me...whatever you do, don't move or else a bunch of us are goners!

Let me add my useless two cents here. After reading most of this thread (I admittedly skimmed through some posts because my attention span when reading is comparable to Eddy Curry's effort level when it's time for a rebound), I've concluded that there a lot of unhappy people on these boards (going out on a limb with that statement, I know, but just hear me out). Many left a while ago, others have contemplated it and others have recently left (Kramer officially will "never be coming back to the boards ever again").

I think the frustration levels for Bulls fans are at an all-time high, for good reason. Anyone who is on here invests wayyyyyy too much of their time and effort into following this team and has done so for years. Naturally, the losing has caused our fuses to be severely shortened, me included. I have lost much patience for this team and ended up not watching half of the game last night, but rather watching some of several other good nba games on tv.

However, I really think that sometimes we have a tendency to take things too seriously here. At its very essence, this is a place we should browse to get away from normal, stressful crap. I'm sure everyone would agree that the last thing you need at a place like this is drama. It's stupid and pointless. These boards have always been made up of people with varying opinions and I don't think that's been any different. I just think our tolerance level is much lower than it was, say, 2 years ago. I, for one, will not leave, just because I don't let things that happen here get to me enough to force me out. It's just not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. 

So, what the hell is my point? Damnit, I wish I had one! Though I don't have one, I will finish by saying this: let's all remember that we're all here with the same hopes; to watch the Bulls return to glory. Even if we have different theories on how that can happen, it doesn't change the fact that we all WANT it to happen. So, please, try to love your brothers and sisters here. We're all just as unfortunate as you to be diehard Bulls fans. After all, it's like a disease and this forum should be a form of therapy, not stress.

(I have no idea what I'm even saying at this point, but hopefully someone does)


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If people are going to blame Gordon (for being played out of position) and call him a bust, because the Bulls are getting rocked nightly, please deal the man. The guy is a future all-star PG, yet the Bulls are trying him at SG. 

I was highly annoyed when they drafted Gordon, but now that it looks like the season is over, which it is, don't fool yourself, Circus trip = awful record. Maybe Gordon will be shifted to a place he can succeed and play his spot and go through his rookie growing pains at his spot. 

Bulls post-MJ are a walkin, running, dunking disaster and the whole operation needs to be gutted. Is there really any doubt that if Tyson Chandler gets traded or leaves in FA, that he will become a double-double man for someone.

Fizer will prove it in Milwaukee too. Something is wrong with this organization. Maybe Jordan gave you two much prosperity, by selling his soul to the BBall Gods, but whatever it is, I would hate to be drafted by this organization right now, because there is no kind of leadership. 

Paxson brothers = ineptitude of front office management.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

For me the most frustrating aspect of watching the Bulls is comparing them with the Bobcats. The philosophy behind both teams is the same. Play hard. Focus the offense on the inside guys. Try to play the right way.

The Bobcats are executing this plan almost entirely with castoffs from other teams, but they have a real team. Brezec, Okafor, and Ely with Jahidi White as a back-up is a formidable front-line that gives other teams trouble. Almost every offensive possession starts by one of those inside guys getting the ball. And Brezec and Okafor can pass, so the Bobcats usually get a good shot. And on defense those big guys are very, very solid and thus teams do not get a lot of good shots against the Bobcats.

Jason Hart and Brevin Knight are not shooters, but they protect the ball, make the right pass, and play solid defense. In essence, they are a rich man's Chris Duhon.

They really miss having a true scoring threat on the wings. Gerald Wallace is too limited of a shooter for that role, but he does a lot of other good things. Steve Smith actually plays pretty well for them and gives them higher quality minutes than veterans have given the Bulls in recent years. Given how the Bobcats have seemingly been able to turn water into wine, I am interested to see how Keith Bogans turns out for them. In theory, he is exactly the kind of player they need. And given how other players have turned out for them, I am hopeful that he turns out to be a pretty good player for them. And finally, Theron Smith has been injured for them all season, but they are very high on him. He apparently can do a lot of the same things as Gerald Wallace, but he also can hit shots.

All in all, the Bobcats are probably a perimeter scoring threat away from being a playoff-contending team in the East. They soundly beat an Orlando team that has been quite impressive this season. (Orlando is 3-1 and beat Dallas pretty handily last night.) The Bobcats also played Washington tough and was respectable in all but one or two of its preseason games.

So why do I go on and on about the Bobcats? I see the Bulls and the Bobcats trying to execute the same game plan, but it appears to me that the Bobcats are executing it much better. The Bobcats are relying more on young veterans and less on rookies, but I think the big difference is that most of the guys on the Bobcats understand the NBA and have bought into the Bobcats plans. I think the Bulls suffer from a lack of experience and guys who have not all bought into what the Bulls are trying to do. There seem to me to be a lot of agendas pulling the Bulls in different directions. And then you have guys like Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng being forced into scorer roles for which they are not accustomed.

Say what you will about Bernie Bickerstaff but this team down in Charlotte is a team that plays hard, plays smart, and plays the right way. It has been a long time since I have been able to make the same argument about the Bulls. The pieces seem to be fitting together here in North Carolina, but in Illinois . . . not so good.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Well Dan, that's a great post first of all. 

However, did you ever think that maybe expectations are little different between Charlotte and Chicago. The Bulls are not supposed to be worst than the Bobcats, but if the Bobcats are the worst team in the league, it doesn't matter. 

Also the Bobcats have a lot of guys who are hungry for PT. Whom have never gotten any chance in the NBA and want to make the most of it, so they are playing balls out for 48 minutes. When some of these guys are trying to get future deals and finally establish themselves in the league, they are going to give max effort. 

However the Bulls just reak of discombobulation and turmoil. No one knows their role, playing guys out of position is the norm, not the exception, the team has 5 friggin PG's on the roster. What the hell do you need 5 PG's for? Oh my bad, but there is still Adrian Griffin and Eric "I've been stealing money from the NBA for years" Piatkowski. :| 

Please get Gordon out of this mess, so I can enjoy his games on my League Pass.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

HKF, could you do us a favor, and just put "Dear Chicago Bulls - please trade Gordon" in your sig so that you don't need to include it in every post you make? :grinning: 

As for this thread, it's all understandable. My advice is the same as PC Load Letter's...it's just a sports team and this is just a message board. Don't let this team's ineptitude tear down your mood or tarnish what is usually a great, thriving community of fans. And to the cockeyed optimists like me, don't get too discouraged by all the negativity. It's justified and most likely right on the money, sad though that is. But if you get tired of reading it, click on another thread or just take a brief (though pleeeaasssee not permanent) break from posting. This is JMSO though.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> After all, it's like a disease and this forum should be a form of therapy, not stress.


It is, you should see the rest of my life 

Anyway, break Kramer down and drag him back here.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> So why do I go on and on about the Bobcats? I see the Bulls and the Bobcats trying to execute the same game plan, but it appears to me that the Bobcats are executing it much better. The Bobcats are relying more on young veterans and less on rookies, but I think the big difference is that most of the guys on the Bobcats understand the NBA and have bought into the Bobcats plans. * I think the Bulls suffer from a lack of experience and guys who have not all bought into what the Bulls are trying to do. There seem to me to be a lot of agendas pulling the Bulls in different directions. And then you have guys like Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng being forced into scorer roles for which they are not accustomed.*


first of all, i hope *mikeDC* has worked out some of his personal message board "stuff" and feels a whole lot better. mike, you are a great poster, don't let them get you down. so what if some people have "defected" or "threatened" never to come back = who cares! you keep on keepin' on! good stuff. kramer will be back. he won't be able to help himself! kismet, i am not so sure. he seems a little over sensitive anyway. 

soo....

as far as the "anger" toward the team, i am more disappointed at this point than angry but what *dan rosenbaum* posted has left me feeling a bit queasy. i edited out most of the bobcat stuff (cause i really don't care about dem cats) but his opinion that the bulls STILL have different agendas operating - well this has me _very concerned_. why is this? i thought we were all on the play hard everynight "as a team" page. granted, there seems to be little chemistry and with the constant shuffling of line-ups there is bound to be even less.

i don't know what the answer is except to say, step away from that ledge, it's just three games in. no need to push the panic button. please. 

do we think the folks in memphis are freakin' out at an 0-4 start? same goes for the hornets. and these were both playoff teams last year. those teams have "stars"...

so for now - please place all tray tables in their locked and upright position, fasten your seat belts and try and breathe deeply - it's going to be a bumpy ride for a little while longer.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Boy, this thread has about the highest sincerity-passion rating of any I've ever seen. Kudos to too many to name.

Mike DC, I'm not a real frequent poster, so maybe I missed the part about you being negative for ulterior motives. From my POV, you're just speaking your mind and this is a reasonable place to do it. As for people leaving the board because of the negativism of your posts, that actually shocks me a little. I mean, my God, it's just a bunch of people's opinions. Besides, you're not one of the many second-guessers...you were blowing your whistle early and often.

This said, I'm very definitely not in the same place you are in looking at these Bulls, and particularly as regards Paxson and Skiles.

Krause bet the farm, and I mean the whole damn farm, on Chandler and Curry. Once those two were picked (and Brand traded), everything Krause did was based on the assumption that this bold gamble would pan out.

Paxson inherited this grand strategy, he didn't create it. By his actions, more than his words, he's shown that he has doubts about Chandler and Curry. This is evident by the fact that ALL of the supporting cast players brought in by Krause to help Chandler and Curry succeed are gone. To me, this is as close to a total repudiation of the Krause strategy as Paxson could make without actually getting rid of Chandler and Curry themselves.

Maybe Paxson should have gone all the way and dumped the 2 Cs, but before this season, Curry had never come to camp in shape and Chandler has never been consistently healthy. The market value of both had already diminished considerably, but there was still hope. 

Note: many of us on this board seem to believe that we know more about the relative value of Bulls' players than the GMs of other NBA teams know because we watch all the games. We don't. They have access to tape machines and staffs to dissect every minute if need be. Curry and Chandler's limitations are not a secret to the people who are paid serious money to know. They also know more about the players on other teams than we do. You're not going to "fleece" too many of these guys, no matter what some of us may think.

I don't know what Paxson has been offered for Chandler or Curry, so I don't know how to evaluate his decisions in this regard. If someone on this board knows, _for a fact,_ what he turned down, please tell me. Anything else is nothing more than speculation based on limited knowledge.

Paxson and Skiles are putting together their team. They're still hoping that Curry and Chandler can be useful in the long run, but Paxson is not betting the farm on it. He's prepared to let one or both go and make the best of it. 

IMO, Paxson's major moves have been, on balance, solid. Hinrich was a great choice at #7 overall. I love what I've seen from Deng, another #7. Nocioni and Griffin were excellent pickups. Harrington is a capable journeyman. Davis for Rose, cut a year off the "overpaid max contract" albatross. Ben Gordon has been Paxson's biggest gamble. We'll see. Pippen was Paxson's clear mistake. 

Eddie Robinson's contract was a disaster...Krause's disaster that Paxson was bequethed. Many amateur capologists believe that ERob's grossly inflated contract could have somehow been an asset. I don't get this, despite the fact that some very knowledgeable posters have said it. ERob has become a minimum salary commodity. The only way he's an asset is if you believe someone else's garbage is your gold, because that's all you're gonna get.

Paxson-Skiles are trying to rebuild. They have a strategy of getting young, talented players who are both productive and coachable. They're still hoping Chandler and Curry will fit this strategy, but my guess is that have the same doubts we do.

If Paxson gives up on the kids, he'll get what he can. I've no doubt that this board will say it's not nearly enough and make up all sorts of trades that (in their imaginations) would have been available. It goes with the territory.

I have a different view of all this. I try not to "micro-criticize." Paxson inherited a friggin' mess. He has 4 years (he's in year 2) to show that he's got the team on the right track. If he doesn't get this done, fire him and Skiles too (unless Pax wants to fire Skiles sooner).

Boy, this ended up being a lot longer thn I planned. Mike, I guess you're not the only one with stuff to get off his chest. Sorry.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Great posts in this thread. I probably agree most with Transplant but will still debate some of his points.



> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Paxson inherited this grand strategy, he didn't create it. By his actions, more than his words, he's shown that he has doubts about Chandler and Curry. This is evident by the fact that ALL of the supporting cast players brought in by Krause to help Chandler and Curry succeed are gone. To me, this is as close to a total repudiation of the Krause strategy as Paxson could make without actually getting rid of Chandler and Curry themselves.


In my mind, other than acquiring Chandler and Curry, Krauses' one main attempt to surround Chandler and Curry with the right kind of player was Rose. I can't think of move that Krause made otherwise that helped these guys.

As an example, JC was here before Chandler and Curry.

I also think that guys like Gordon and Pike are a clear indication that Pax still was putting a fair amount of his trust in Chandler and Curry.




> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> I don't know what Paxson has been offered for Chandler or Curry, so I don't know how to evaluate his decisions in this regard. If someone on this board knows, _for a fact,_ what he turned down, please tell me. Anything else is nothing more than speculation based on limited knowledge.


I totally agree with this.

Note: Chris Ford is not a source.



> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!Paxson inherited a friggin' mess. He has 4 years (he's in year 2) to show that he's got the team on the right track.


I agree that many of Pax's move have been solid. I would certainly give him the rest of this year and all of next if we remotely competitive in 2 out of every 3 ball games.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Most of what needs to be contributed has already been stated in a more elloquently fashion then of what I am capable. I want to point out one thing; there are two issues at play here:

1) A select few quality posters have left from what they perceived was an overly negative attitude; and

2) The Bulls are bad.

The second issue drives the first. Our community is comparable to a family locked in the rear seat of a station wagon on a cross-country trip to Walley World. Though we share ideals and respect, we're not going to get to California with all limbs intact. 

Peace, love, happiness.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Wow, I coudn't agree with you more, Transplant.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> Most of what needs to be contributed has already been stated in a more elloquently fashion then of what I am capable. I want to point out one thing; there are two issues at play here:
> 
> 1) A select few quality posters have left from what they perceived was an overly negative attitude; and
> ...


:laugh: 

Don't forget the dead decomposing great aunt (or however Imogene Coco was related to the Griswolds) in the back seat.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Great post, DC. In fact , good posts from everyone!


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Johnston, another great poster heard from.

Agree that Rose was the key piece Krause obtained for the puzzle. I can't say how much it affected drafts, potential trades and free agent acquisitions (all specualtion), but the long-term commitment to Chandler and Curry probably had an effect on all possible moves involving starting PFs and Cs.

As I look at the Paxson drafts, I'm not sure he avoided PFs and Cs as much as there just weren't any worth picking at those spots.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Boy, this ended up being a lot longer thn I planned. Mike, I guess you're not the only one with stuff to get off his chest. Sorry.


:clap: Very well said, transplant.

A lot of people want a quick-fix. Hell, I'd like one too. But I'm of the belief that, realistically, quick-fixes almost always produce a bigger mess than one started out with.

Correcting for past mistakes will, unfortunatly, take some time. From last year to this, Pax introduced 10 new players to the roster. Let's give this group a little more time to see what it can do.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I tried to weigh in with my own thread, but I want to say some other stuff too. So far Paxson has been good in evaluating talent for the most part, but he inherited a legitimate mess from Krause. Last year he fired Cartwright and hired Skiles, he signed Pippen, drafted Hinrich, traded Crawford and JYD for Piatkowski, F. Williams, Trybanski, and Adrian Griffin. Out of those moves, which ones are absolutely terrible. The Skiles hiring looks bad now, but Cartwright was infinitely worse, signing Pippen we all blast now but a lot of people on here thought he had a couple years left in him and would be a good veteran presence, and drafting Hinrich looks like the right move. He botched the Crawford thing, but Crawford wanted out and I can't fault Pax for trying to improve our financial situation. Overall, like I mentioned in MY post if you wish to respond (CHEAP PLUG) is that our core is young...too young. We have no balance, no chemistry, and no identity. Who do we get the ball too first? In the NBA you need A GUY, a Kobe, Shaq, T-Mac, KG, Duncan who is the guy on your team you can depend on. Basketball is a far more individual sports than baseball or football. The Pistons argument isn't even a good one, as they had Rip. There is a formula for building a team, one which Krause tried to deviate from and it didn't work...

STAR PLAYER(POST OR PERIMETER)
#2 SCORER
SOLID POINT GUARD
POST/PERIMETER SCORER
POST DEFENDER/REBOUNDER

COMBO GUARD
ATHLETIC DEFENSIVE WING
VETERAN POST PLAYER

Those are the top 8 guys on any given team. Look at the good teams, it's the same formula up and down. Now true sometimes the roles are different, Duncan, KG, and Shaq are the stars and instead of a post scorer you need a legitimate perimeter scorer(Szcerbiak, Bowen, Eddie Jones). From early returns we have got some of those pieces. Kirk Hinrich is a definite solid point guard, Gordon is a definite combo guard, Nocioni is an athletic defensive wing, Chandler is a post perimeter/defender. 

I honestly think we need a couple of years maybe to replace pieces. 

STAR PLAYER(POST OR PERIMETER) 
#2 SCORER - LUOL DENG
SOLID POINT GUARD - KIRK HINRICH
POST/PERIMETER SCORER - EDDY CURRY
POST DEFENDER/REBOUNDER - TYSON CHANDLER

COMBO GUARD - BEN GORDON
ATHLETIC DEFENSIVE WING - ANDRES NOCIONI
VETERAN POST PLAYER - ANTONIO DAVIS

Throw in Adrian Griffin who I hope we can hang onto for another couple years and Othella Harrington and you got a good team missing some key elements. Is Eddy Curry a legitimate scoring threat down low? We still need that guy right now. I think Deng will become that star player honestly and that eventually we'll need a Pippen to his Jordan so to speak (not to say Deng will be nearly as good as Jordan) but you get the drift. Still look at that core. Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni are rookies, Chandler is 21, Hinrich is a 2nd year guy. Davis is the only one with any amount of experience and he's got too much. We need time, unfortunately. Something Paxson doesn't have the luxury of having at least with us fans. We're tired of losing, but it's not John Paxson's fault. He didn't deal 3 All-Stars for nothing. If anybody blame the Jerrys, they put the Bulls in this hole. My question is how much better is this team with Ray Allen or Vince Carter or a legitimate guy that we can get the ball too. I think we become a lot better, INSTANTLY. We're one player short, just like the Hawks, Clippers, Bobcats, Warriors, and Grizzlies. We're missing that star player, something which we haven't been able to just get so we've had to wait hoping one of our own guys develops and becomes that. But time is money, and money is fans, and the fans are disappearing permanantly.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

My biggest complaint about Paxson's moves is that he has not surrounded his young core with the type of players that will allow them to play their roles. MikeDC talked about this in another thread.

The Bulls only go-to scorer (Curry) has one move and has very little ability to make teams pay for double teams. This forces Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni into roles that are likely to lead to frustration and the development of bad habits. In particular, factoring in the unforgiving UC crowd and Chicago sportswriters, this our young players may get very disillusioned. This usually leads to players, coaches, and staff pointing fingers in the search for scapegoats. The resulting chemistry problems on the team and with the coaches and front office staff makes it very difficult for players to get any better.

It is very difficult for a bunch of young twenty-somethings to deal with failure day in and day out in a major city that cares about its sports teams. Think about how you would deal with the criticism these guys are exposed to. Just because these guys have athletic skills that none of us has does not mean that they are any better prepared to deal with failure. In fact, it probably makes them less better prepared since most of these guys have enjoyed nothing but sucess in their lives. Perhaps especially those guys coming from winning college programs.

Perhaps it is because Paxson and Skiles were role players that they underestimate the importance of the types of players that allowed them to play their roles. I don't know. But getting young, talented basketball players to work on their games, play hard, and listen to the coaches is made so much more difficult through the boos at the UC and the merciless criticism of the Chicago papers and radio jocks. This ain't fantasy league basketball.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> :clap: Very well said, transplant.
> 
> ...


Again, I think this sort of misses the point. 

Quick fixed sometimes produce a bigger mess, but by not making the moves he NEEDED to make when he could realistically make then, Paxson has gotten himself into a point where it's going to be VERY difficult not to attempt a quick fix.

I mean, it's not me saying "something has to be done" just because I think so... I think Dan's point is right on. If we just continue to suffer through ***-kickings like this, the fans and media are going to go totally ape**** with the scapegoating and blame. Something is absolutely going to give and Pax is going to be forced to make a move.

Or, if we make no move whatsoever, don't we run a pretty legitimate risk of messing up our young players?

What, exactly, is "more time" going to accomplish in that context? I've seen what Eddy Curry can do. I've seen what Scott Skiles coaches. I've seen what constant losing does to talented but inexperienced and overmatched players. 

I agree that making a move under these conditions is risky. That's why I advocated different moves this summer... so we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. Yes, making a move is risky, but there are two sides to the coin; making no moves appears to me to carry very real risks of further screwing up players we might save by making a move now. There is no quick-fix one way or the other because the mistakes have already been made. The only thing to decide is which course of action from here minimizes the fallout.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I never thought there was a quick fix in any of the past 6 seasons.

If you have lots of cap space and no free agents are willing to sign with you, consolidating SOME (not ALL) young talent for a proven veteran star basically accomplishes the same thing. You get your star signed to a big contract and locked up for some number of years...

The problem, as I see it, is that we didn't continue to consolidate more young talent into another veteran star. Repeat one more time, even, and we start to look like the TWolves, but hopefully with somewhat younger vets.

We've all done the what if scenarios.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, I think this sort of misses the point.
> ...


If we can all agree that Curry and Chandler are busts, then let's trade them. Many would not have agreed with this premise this summer. You believed it then and I give you credit. The more I see Chandler and Curry play, the more I think they ain't gonna be big time players...here or anywhere else. As much as I hate to say it, I think you may have been right.

In history, many of the prophets who predicted unpopular things were killed. Consider yourself lucky.

The thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that Paxson was "dealt a bad hand." He clearly was and if Chandler and Curry are busts, he was dealt not a bad hand, but a terrible hand. Put a different way, if Curry and Chandler are busts, Paxson took over the team with absolutely nothing on which to build. If this is the case, crucifying him after one year is simply unfair.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> The thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that Paxson was "dealt a bad hand." He clearly was and if Chandler and Curry are busts, he was dealt not a bad hand, but a terrible hand. Put a different way, if Curry and Chandler are busts, Paxson took over the team with absolutely nothing on which to build. If this is the case, crucifying him after one year is simply unfair.


Who cares if Paxson was dealt a bad hand? Bernie Bickerstaff arguably was dealt a worse hand than Paxson, and it seems to me that the Bobcats are going to put a competitive team on the floor this season. I think all of their free agent acquisitions add up to less than the MLE, so in essence they have put together this team with no more to work with than the Bulls have.

Recognizing a bad had and dealing with it as quickly as possible is part of what makes a good manager. Paxson and Skiles know more about Chandler and Curry than any of us, so their struggles should not be a suprise to them. They have the advantage over all of us in getting to see these guys day in and day out. If they are not ready to be leaders of this team, the Bulls should have been prepared for that.

But it is only one game for Curry. Remember that Duncan looked pretty bad against a trapping Phoenix team in the playoffs two seasons ago. Perhaps Curry has turned the corner.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> If we can all agree that Curry and Chandler are busts, then let's trade them. Many would not have agreed with this premise this summer. You believed it then and I give you credit. The more I see Chandler and Curry play, the more I think they ain't gonna be big time players...here or anywhere else. As much as I hate to say it, I think you may have been right.
> ...


 I wouldn't give myself that much credit, but I do consider myself lucky 



> The thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that Paxson was "dealt a bad hand." He clearly was and if Chandler and Curry are busts, he was dealt not a bad hand, but a terrible hand. Put a different way, if Curry and Chandler are busts, Paxson took over the team with absolutely nothing on which to build. If this is the case, crucifying him after one year is simply unfair.


I don't think I've refused to acknowledge that he got a crummy hand, I just have a different view, I think, of how to improve it. To me, I make a distinction between having time and making decisions. I don't really care about time, other than the fact that time becomes critical to making decisions. Fair or not, the rules of the league, player contracts, and opportunities pass with time. Because of that, as I said earlier, making no decision and just continuing to plunge forward is itself a decision. 

The issue isn't whether he's been given "enough time" it's whether he's made good and timely decisions. Ironically, from that perspective I'd have quite a bit more sympathy for him if he made quicker decisions on the mess he inherited. While I don't think the Rose/Marshall trade or firing Cartwright were necessarily the right decisions, from the perspective of Paxson as a new guy coming into a bad situation, they were less questionable to me. But by hanging onto guys for so long, he effectively took ownership of some of them and the window of opportunity closed to say that the presence of those guys who were not his guys was not his decision. Over time he's made it his decision and he's made them his guys by the fact of continuing with them.

While I might agree or disagree with a particular decision on its merits, at least it's being made consciously and with a plan. And that in particular bugs the hell out of me about some of the scapegoating of Curry and Chandler as part of the "mess Jerry Krause left behind". Well, that's true, but Paxson took ownership of that mess by keeping it around for two offseasons and building on it as if everything was going to be alright. Spinning it as someone else's mistake at this point seems pretty crass to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What's this crummy hand stuff about anyway?

Pax had Rose and Marshall who were both more than servicable veterans who are still contributing.

Pax had JWill, #2 pick overall in the draft. 

He had Chandler and Curry, both #4 or better. 

He had Fizer, another #4. 

He had another #7 pick who ended up scoring 17+ PPG given full-time minutes.

He had a 2nd round pick who played 30+ minutes for a playoff team last season after getting cut. 

He had Hoiberg who also played about 30 minutes for that same team. He had the MVP of the RMR league. 

He had the #7 pick in the upcoming draft. 

He had ERob, who was a suitable end of the bench guy at worst.

He had the MLE to use, too.

That's a roster 12 deep, and I do mean deep.

He had a former center/pf who played in a twin towers offense/defense and who also played on our championship teams to coach the two bigs.

He inherited a team that went from 21 wins to 30.

What's this "bad hand" stuff about, really?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> What's this crummy hand stuff about anyway?
> 
> Pax had Rose and Marshall who were both more than servicable veterans who are still contributing.
> ...


And our record with that team was...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> kramer will be back. he won't be able to help himself! kismet, i am not so sure. _he seems a little over sensitive anyway._


I am not!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not!


Kismet is back!. Good to have you around


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not!


:laugh: 

somehow i knew that would make you pop out of the woodwork! 

and please consider posting here a little more regularly. your insight is valued. no matter what anyone may say. 

 :yes:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> ...


I second that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

3rd


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Make that a 4th. We need a contrarian around here.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Make that a 4th. We need a contrarian around here.


We got plenty of optimists, but not one with the intelligence or insight of Kismet.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> We got plenty of optimists, but not one with the intelligence or insight of Kismet.


i'll agree with that .

we have more than our share of posters who can look at the same roster on 2 consectutive days at 2 p.m. and decide whether its a bunch of crap or paxson's shining vision , depending on how the a very inconsistent team played the previous night.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> We got plenty of optimists, but not one with the intelligence or insight of Kismet.


We have a lot of intelligent optimists around here. But I am not sure we have an optimist or pessimist with the posting ability of Kismet. That guy knows how to put words together.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> For me the most frustrating aspect of watching the Bulls is comparing them with the Bobcats. The philosophy behind both teams is the same. Play hard. Focus the offense on the inside guys. Try to play the right way.
> 
> The Bobcats are executing this plan almost entirely with castoffs from other teams, but they have a real team.


They have a good chance to win their second tonight.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> They have a good chance to win their second tonight.


Yes, they do. And this is with Steve Smith as the backup point guard.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Bobcats looking good.
Expansion franchise on their way to to their second win before the Bulls sniff their first.
:uhoh: 


And I too have Kismet fever.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Who cares if Paxson was dealt a bad hand? Bernie Bickerstaff arguably was dealt a worse hand than Paxson, and it seems to me that the Bobcats are going to put a competitive team on the floor this season.


I don't know that I would agree with that.

Pax had Rose.

Bickerstaff could have taken Rose in the expansion draft but didn;t.

Bickerstaff did get some nice talent in the expansion draft: Wallace, Brezec, Kapono and White.

Pax didn't get an expansion draft.

Bickerstaff was able to turn cap space into players like House and Ely.

Pax has never had cap space.

So Bernie did have a lot of tools that Pax didn't.

Pax did have Crawford, Chandler and Curry. :|


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Yes, they do. And this is with Steve Smith as the backup point guard.


They got edged by two...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I don't know that I would agree with that.
> 
> Pax had Rose.
> ...


Wow! There is no way that I can argue with that. We have hit rock bottom if we are willing to argue that the Bobcats had a brighter future than the Bulls not just now but even before the expansion draft.

And the Bobcats did drop the game tonight, so they still have just one win.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Nice thread guys. 

The mood of the board is down and has been down since about trade dealine of last season. Winning few games will help in the short run and give us something to talk about besides losing. 

We got beat last night in the worse way possible. Playing at home, the Suns put it to us in everyway they could. 
it seems everyone had a bad game. Amare outplayed both of our bigs at both ends of the court. That shouldn't ever happen at home. The Suns are for realm but there is no way we should get blown out at home. No way. 

For those of you who know me from the past few years, know that I am about as optimistic about the bulls as anyone else on here except for Kismet. I try to look at the good things and keep hoping for the best. 

I have not been around as much as I used to be because I am going to college in my old age. Trying to better myself. It takes up a lot of my time. So my absence from the board does not mean I have left nor does it mean I do not care about the bulls anymore. I do. I have listened to all three home games. And I have come to the conclusion that Curry and Chandler do not have what it takes to bring this team to the next level of winning basketball. Putting them together at the same time makes it worse. We have made many changes over the last 6 years and it looks like some more need to be made. Either both of them or one of them have to go. Eddy will bring us more value. We could keep Tyson because he won't try and break the bank with us. He is more athletic than Eddy is. It will be interesting to see what unfolds in the weeks ahead. Do not be surprised to see Curry gone by deadline if not before it. He will have some nice games in the meantime, but do not be fooled into thinking that he will now stay on account of those games. I think the writing is on the wall. Eddy should have played better than he did. Much better. 

Some bright spots for us? No doubt it is deng. The kid is 1 year out of college and he is a player! He will only get better. He is better than any player we could have taken in the draft next season as far as I am concerned. Nice move by Pax. 

Give Gordon time. Another month from now, then I will be concerned. 

Nicioni. Solid player. Trying to find his shot. When it comes, we will be more competitive. Nice pick up by the Bulls. 

Duhon. I was surprised when we took him in the second round and even more surprised seeing him make the team and be a factor as well. He is a nice pick up. Not a star, but nice. 

Dumping e-rob was a nice move. Waste of talent but a nice move nevertheless. 

Harrington is a nice back up pf, but thats all. Piat is struggling to find his shot. Hope he finds it and Williams is a huge dissapointment. I was thinking he could really help us in some games this season but he is riding the IR untill he gets in shape whenever that might be. 

As for the original topic of the thread. It is hard to be optimistic when we lose for 6 years. I mean we lose night in anight out. Kinda hard to follow when just 8 years before that we won 6 out of 8 years! And a few years before that we were always in the playoffs. That being said, it is easier I think sometimes for posters to take their frustrations out of each other. That is one thing we try not let happen but it does nevertheless. All I can say is let's try not to come down on anyone who may see things a little differently than we/you may see things at the time you make your posts. Remember, it is not the posters fault that the Bulls are losing. He or she is a fan the same way that you are. 

Difference of opinion is what makes a messageboard great! 

Another long season is in store for us. We will win some games that we were suppose to lose. I didn't expect us to get off to a good start anyway. As usual we have too many new players trying to learn each others nuoncences. That takes time. 

I will try and come here more often. Time is hard to come by these days.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Trueblue:

I applaud you for going back to school. That takes a lot of courage and effort, and it serves as a good reminder to all of us that there are billions of things in life more important than the Bulls.

Hopefully when you're done and have more time on your hands, the Bulls'll actually be competitive. Stranger stuff has happened.

In the meantime, good luck with your studies! We'll keep the boards warm for you.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

>>retracted response to a poster in-thread<

(can't delete the post)


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The thread getting bumped is a good opportunity for some of the participating posters to perhaps re-evaluate some of their previous negativity. A sort of that was then... this is now.

Anyone care to start?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

And i will start. I have said from the beginning of this year that this team would play with heart and guts and ever more importantly they will continue to improve and would finish the season playing much better than they started. I stand by that.

I also said i would rather watch a team hustle and care about winning than watching a bunch of players care more about how they look and dribbling between their legs. I stand by that.

I enjoy watching this team more than last years and think this team has not only great talent but players with the right tude and team commetment. I stand by that.

Our early troubles were due to the youth of this team and the just awful schedule were got stuck with and as the season went on the wins would come. Ditto.

Lastly, IMHO this team is going to be better than last year and i still think that. D wins games and these guys are playing nasty D and used that to gut out three tough wins.

david


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well hindsight being what it is, i would say that i was right in taking a let's just wait a little longer and see approach. this thread was started six whole days after the bulls regular season started.

patience is a virtue anyone?

the trust between the players (read: chemistry) took a month to build, and in the grand scheme of things, that is not that unreasonable.

it was a painful november to forget and so far it is a december to remember. if the bulls win v. the blazers on monday and it will be the first FOUR GAME streak since....1998. wow. now that would really be something. i wouldn't count on five though. we got the pistons @ the palace on wednesday.

i still advise everyone, before every game, to take a deep breath, or a valium and hold on tight. that game last night was darn ugly. but the bulls held on. maybe they are "larnin'" something. 

oh, and we now have a better record than the bobcats! 

and we moved ahead of the bucks and are no longer dead last in the central.

and we have wins on wednesdays, two saturdays and a thursday.



goodness, are these reasons to remain angry?

miz thinks not.

good thread bump. i didn't even remember posting in this thread.

i really need a life.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> The more I see Chandler and Curry play, the more I think they ain't gonna be big time players...here or anywhere else.


Uh, well, um, I may have been a little premature on this one.

However, in my own defense, most of what I wrote in this thread related to refusing to declare Paxson a bust as a GM, given that he didn't have much to work with and hadn't had much time to fix things.

With regard to Chandler and Curry, December has been a revelation. They have been impact players. Not every game, but most of 'em.

In November, I would have traded either of them for merely "useful" players. I'm glad I'm not the GM.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> Most of what needs to be contributed has already been stated in a more elloquently fashion then of what I am capable. I want to point out one thing; there are two issues at play here:
> 
> 1) A select few quality posters have left from what they perceived was an overly negative attitude; and
> ...


I was wrong. We made it to L.A. with all apendages. Arenas is short an eye though -- he and Bull hawk got in to an altercation over who had to sit hump somwhere outside of Lincoln, Nebraska.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Fire Skiles!

Fire Paxson!

Bench Hinrich!

Blow up the team!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I reread through my posts on this thread and I think they did a good job communicating my measured disappointment earlier in the season. A post of mine from another thread, I think, best sums up my view now, so I repost it here. It was in response to a post complaining about the effect of the young Bulls having to go through a series of "soul-crushing blowouts" early in the season.

If the last 10 games are any indication, the Bulls have passed through the period of "soul-crushing blowouts" with their souls intact. This group, even in the midst of those blowouts, seemed to be more resilient than past groups. At this point, some credit has to be given to Paxson and Skiles for implementing a plan that seems to have largely worked. I argued for keeping Crawford to save the young Bulls from the "soul-crushing blowouts," but they appear to have survived them without Crawford and now are playing good ball. There appears to be a mental toughness with this group that has not existed post-dynasty, except in the 20 or so game period prior to the Artest & Miller for Rose trade.

For the most part, I would have to argue right now that Paxson and Skiles were right and I was wrong. They did not need an established scorer on this team to protect them from "soul-crushing blowouts." The combination of Hinrich, Curry, Deng, and Gordon gives them enough scoring, combined with a very good defense, to be competitive. That is the biggest surprise to me, so far. I just did not see this team being this good defensively. 

It was not the first time, nor will it be the last time that I am wrong. But throughout (except with the Corie Blount situation), I have tried to be tempered in my criticism; even in the darkest days it was possible to imagine how their plan might work. Now I am not saying the Bulls are out of the woods yet, but there have been preciously few periods (outside of the tail end of seasons) where the Bulls have played as well as they have over these last 10 games. Credit should be given where credit is due. Good job Paxson and Skiles.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I reread through my posts on this thread and I think they did a good job communicating my measured disappointment earlier in the season. A post of mine from another thread, I think, best sums up my view now, so I repost it here. It was in response to a post complaining about the effect of the young Bulls having to go through a series of "soul-crushing blowouts" early in the season.
> 
> If the last 10 games are any indication, the Bulls have passed through the period of "soul-crushing blowouts" with their souls intact. This group, even in the midst of those blowouts, seemed to be more resilient than past groups. At this point, some credit has to be given to Paxson and Skiles for implementing a plan that seems to have largely worked. I argued for keeping Crawford to save the young Bulls from the "soul-crushing blowouts," but they appear to have survived them without Crawford and now are playing good ball. There appears to be a mental toughness with this group that has not existed post-dynasty, except in the 20 or so game period prior to the Artest & Miller for Rose trade.
> ...


man these sentiments by those of you guys who were hard on the new regime is good to hear. Perhaps all of us were so embittered by the long years of futility post dynasty could be excused. Its hard to as Marriotti says "suck on patience" after all that
Pax and Skiles were unreasonably tainted by the previous years IMO. They have just started, and needed a chance to get their program up and running. All the moves don't look good to everyone. Everyone is different, would be different.

In the end, you can't accurately judge a job half done. I just wish instead of all of us being so sure we were right, to instead be this is what i THINK NOW. We'll see later who's right....it wasn't like that, and we had a lot of arguments because folks were ready to fight (figuratively) because they were *100% sure*.

good to see guys like you standing up Dan. You weren't necesarily wrong if you held out the disclaimer...we'll see later. We still don't know anything for sure yet. *we'll see later*

chalk it up to a tough 6 years of frustration


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I missed this post elsewhere you posted it. It's a good one.

Maybe it's good I couldn't delete my post and send it back down. When I first came onto the board, I didn't see the thread and thought a mod had done it for me.




> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I reread through my posts on this thread and I think they did a good job communicating my measured disappointment earlier in the season. A post of mine from another thread, I think, best sums up my view now, so I repost it here. It was in response to a post complaining about the effect of the young Bulls having to go through a series of "soul-crushing blowouts" early in the season.
> 
> If the last 10 games are any indication, the Bulls have passed through the period of "soul-crushing blowouts" with their souls intact. This group, even in the midst of those blowouts, seemed to be more resilient than past groups. At this point, some credit has to be given to Paxson and Skiles for implementing a plan that seems to have largely worked. I argued for keeping Crawford to save the young Bulls from the "soul-crushing blowouts," but they appear to have survived them without Crawford and now are playing good ball. There appears to be a mental toughness with this group that has not existed post-dynasty, except in the 20 or so game period prior to the Artest & Miller for Rose trade.
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> Pax and Skiles were unreasonably tainted by the previous years IMO. They have just started, and needed a chance to get their program up and running.


If Pax and Skiles manage to not squander the talented inheritance of the twin towers... the bulls will be good.

If the towers under perform.... the team will suck.

Same as last year... and the year before.

I tired of talking about the end of 2002/2003.... and i'm sure everyone is tired of it... but that team at the end of the season was as good as this one, IMO... and the team that Pax decided to blow up was off to a better start than this one.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> If Pax and Skiles manage to not squander the talented inheritance of the twin towers... the bulls will be good.
> ...



LOL. "talented inheritance". It's good to see you going with Plan B k4e. Either way, you can't lose.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think it is important for all of us to remember that we are ALL Bulls fans. Most of us have been Bulls fans for many years. We may disagree from time to time on players or on what management does but the bottom line is we are ALL Bulls fans here. I think we all need to be mature enough to realize that not everyone is going to share our opinions and if they did the world would be a boring place. I've come to accept that a lot of people disagree with my opinions and despite that I still have nothing but love and respect for them as fellow Bulls fans.


I stand by my post!


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I stand by my post!


Good post, ace. Didn't see that before. It's just that it's the Bulls fan in me that sometimes *****les in the face of such organization bashing in the midst of the first positive signs of anything.....er, positive. :grinning: 

It's all good. We need the yin as well as the yang. Otherwise, what's the point.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I stand by my post!


Don't stand too close. You might get hit by incoming enemy fire.

:grinning:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

First, I think the underlying argument made by a couple of people in some of the other (similar) thread here who are encouraging all of the "negative" people to repent is a silly one to be making on a message board.  Whenever I see the "well, none of you are that smart, you aren't NBA GMs" I think, "well, why are you posting here then?" If all you want is a massive group of people collectively holding admiration and awe for the league intelligencia and expressing a collective desire to not pass judge on anything, I can't think of a better argument to make.

By that logic, could you tell me how anyone from the outside looking in could *ever* criticize anything a team does? If any argument should be rebutted by a snarky little "nya nya, NBA GMs aren't paying attention to you" then we might as well close up shop right now, shut down BBB.net, RealGM, and every other message board on the internet.

I mean, duh, of course none of us here knows everything, but it makes for a pretty lame discussion if we're limited to "Golly geepers, I sure hope our team pulls out of its slump", which seems to be the general implication of what you're saying.

Moreover, I think such arguments are pretty silly because I think NBA GMs, especially when their teams are nose-diving, do plenty of second-guessing themselves. Acting as if it was silly for anyone to question what these guys were doing all along when it's likely they are probably second-guessing themselves at various points too seems rather simplistic. While we thankfully appear to have pulled it together, it's worth questioning just how close we were to falling apart entirely. Although I'm happy to say I was wrong, I think I came pretty close to being right. 

Anyway, the classy thing to do is to be magnanimous when you're right, admit when you're wrong, and think critically in any case. Regarding Paxson and Skiles, I think they were right in several areas:

* I think the thing I was most wrong about was Ben Gordon. Clearly, when he plays well, we're capable of beating anyone, and I wouldn't have drafted him at all. Kudos to Paxson for picking what looks like the first 6'3 SG to come out and be successful in well... I don't know, a long time.

* I'm very surprised that Curry has magically started playing such strong basketball. I'm not all that sure Paxson and Skiles deserve the credit for that, given that their approach to him didn't seem much different than it has been for the past year and a half.

However, I do see a key difference in that Skiles has let Eddy and Tyson play through some sucky stretches and they've rewarded him by overcoming mistakes. Curry, for example, had 5 TOs tonight a couple of them ugly, which would have gotten him the rest of the game on the bench a few weeks ago.

* I think even before the winning streak got started the quotes from Skiles started to become a bit less ascerbic and more supportive. I'd have to go back and date things, but my sense is that our better play was preceeded by a slight change in tone from the coaching, and a lot of credit is due to Skiles for recognizing the tone needed to change.

* Regarding Curry, the hard work of figuring out what to do with them doesn't seem any easier. I could just as easily imagine Curry starting to stink it up again, at least for stretches. I just don't see the rhyme or reason to his appearances and disappearances on the court. Still, it's getting to the point where they have to re-think trading him no matter what. At some point he's approaching consistency, and you have to realize that even if you overpay for him, he'll be an above average (at worst) center, and that's something most teams don't have. Even if they max him, they'll have a decent amount of cap room in two years.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> First, I think the underlying argument made by a couple of people in some of the other (similar) thread here who are encouraging all of the "negative" people to repent is a silly one to be making on a message board.  Whenever I see the "well, none of you are that smart, you aren't NBA GMs" I think, "well, why are you posting here then?" If all you want is a massive group of people collectively holding admiration and awe for the league intelligencia and expressing a collective desire to not pass judge on anything, I can't think of a better argument to make.
> 
> By that logic, could you tell me how anyone from the outside looking in could *ever* criticize anything a team does? If any argument should be rebutted by a snarky little "nya nya, NBA GMs aren't paying attention to you" then we might as well close up shop right now, shut down BBB.net, RealGM, and every other message board on the internet.
> ...


I believe it to be the level of egomaniacal, self-absorbed, self-righteousness with which some post their superfluous load of crap - trying to pass it off as an exemplification of their own self-proclamation of sports genius. 

Frankly, it comes off about as interesting as the nya, nya, thing. Discussion is fine, but frankly some folks heads tend to get a little too big for their own posts.

Oh and by the way, Merry Christmas.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

If the Bulls lose there next 5 games, all of a sudden there would be posts complaining about Paxson and Skiles, trade ideas for half of the roster and threads being posted about why posters were right all along while everyone else was wrong. Then the Bulls would pick up again and the cycle would continue. To me it just goes to show how fickle and day to day a lot of peoples opinions are who talk about basketball on this meassage board.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I believe it to be the level of egomaniacal, self-absorbed, self-righteousness with which some post their superfluous load of crap - trying to pass it off as an exemplification of their own self-proclamation of sports genius.
> ...


I dunno about that, I personally think I'm just some guy on a message board, and my point was just to encourage everyone else to do the same, be cool to everyone else, whether you agree with them or not, and talk about basketball rather than trying to take other folks down a peg. I guess if I were a sports genius like you, though, I might feel differently.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I believe it to be the level of egomaniacal, self-absorbed, self-righteousness with which some post their superfluous load of crap - trying to pass it off as an exemplification of their own self-proclamation of sports genius.


Nice prose. Nice post too.


----------

