# Mariotti: Paxson needs a big home run



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay11.html




> *I'm pleased to know that Jerry Reinsdorf actually cares about the Bulls.* For a while there, I wasn't sure, given his relentless assertions that one White Sox championship means more to Chicago than a six-pack of NBA titles. The other day, he stood in U.S. Cellular Field and reiterated his stance, which not only is highly debatable -- only segments of this city are Sox fans, while almost everyone was a Bulls fan -- but seems to downplay the miracle of a certain Michael Jordan.
> 
> *"Internationally, basketball is bigger than baseball, so the Bulls' championships had bigger impact around the world,'' Reinsdorf said. "In Chicago, this had a much greater impact on fans than the Bulls did.''*
> 
> ...








> This is what we've been waiting for since Jerry Krause was thrown in the dumpster: a summer when the Bulls have megabucks to spend while owning the first-round draft choice of the putrid New York Knicks, which very possibly could be the primo pick on lottery night. Mad Pax has done some good deeds in his three years, such as drafting Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, Ben Gordon and Chris Duhon; trading hopeless Eddy Curry for what could be a bounty of talent; and hiring Scott Skiles, who continues to accomplish more with less than any coach in the NBA. *Paxson also has done a few dumb things, such as handing $64 million to Tyson Chandler, letting the expensive Tim Thomas rot away and looking woefully out of his element when he played Dr. DNA in the Curry heart case. Considering what he inherited from Krause and how incredibly far he has taken this franchise in a short period, Paxson deserves our trust.*
> 
> 
> *But now he has to deliver. Mediocrity doesn't fly, as evidenced by the complete lack of Bulls buzz all season*. If the surge last spring brought back some emotion, an encore of losing has created a realism among fans that NBA no-man's land is no fun -- and could last longer than anyone wants to admit. Rather than celebrating the cheap concept of backing into the playoffs, Paxson has to sell the future and make dramatic moves that will stick for years. Right now, Chicago is a baseball town first, a football town second and a hoops town only when nothing's going on with the Sox, Cubs and Bears, which is rare. Paxson has a chance to create a dazzling new world.





> *Mad Pax has lots of money and plenty of options. Not much is on the line here or anything, only the future of pro basketball in Chicago. The Jordan statue still looks proud as ever over on West Madison, but eight years later, it's getting a little lonely.
> 
> Remember that shot Paxson hit in '93? This one is almost as vital.*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

His suggestions? Land Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal or Paul Pierce. Or draft Aldridge or Noah. Hey, cool. Make any of those things happen.



> His first move? Inquire seriously about trading for Kevin Garnett, the superstar this city deserves and just the ticket to return sizzle to a sleepy hoops town. Despite claims by owner Glen Taylor that the Minnesota Timberwolves won't trade him, no one will be shocked if Garnett is shopped this summer. He's making too much noise that he wants out, saying recently: "I don't want to go through this anymore. I'm more deserving of a better team, and the city's more deserving of a better team.'' Few NBA teams are in position to pay a contract that guarantees Garnett $20 million a year through 2009, and few teams have the goods that would interest Minnesota. The Bulls are one exception.
> 
> Garnett the go-to guy Bulls need
> 
> ...





> The Bulls need a go-to guy, a franchise player to lean on. If not Garnett, that man could be Jermaine O'Neal, who is disenchanted in Indiana as the fading Pacers try to squeeze into the playoffs one spot ahead of the Bulls. "We just will not play defense,'' O'Neal said Sunday. "At this point, we don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.'' Offer a similar package for O'Neal.
> 
> Paul Pierce would be a monster pickup, too. But like the others, he has to be on the trade market. If all three remain with their teams, the Bulls could be looking at free agent Al Harrington, the next-best move. Paxson then would draft a big man, perhaps Texas' hot-and-cold LaMarcus Aldridge or Florida whiz Joakim Noah if he changes his mind and turns pro. You can dream about Greg Oden, but it would take a freakily fortunate set of circumstances to land the 7-foot stud in the summer of 2007.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

This summer could very well impact us for the next 4-7 years. We are not going to have this opportunity again (capspace) with Tyson's contract, and extending the rest of the core.

I do not want to get KG if it means gutting our team. I would rather keep the team, and give up a few future 1st rounders, and the NYK pick if it meant getting KG. I would not mind JO, as I used to love him as a player. Lately that has changed. He isn't much of a leader, has been getting injured a lot (been in the league about 10 years?), and I would offer little to get him. However, he is a post presence and is a banger down low.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch made one of the better posts on these boards a few days ago that directly addresses this topic:



Da Grinch said:


> why not?
> the bulls were a rising team 3 years ago when pax took over.
> 
> they were a 30 win team then ...3 years later they are on pace for 37-38 wins ....thats not much progress when you consider he inherited the nba's youngest team or close to it and has had 3 lotto picks plus (up to 5 by next offseason ) and 4 offseasons in which to garner talent .
> ...


Da Grinch: :cheers:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Da Grinch made one of the better posts on these boards a few days ago that directly addresses this topic:
> 
> 
> 
> Da Grinch: :cheers:


I agree, that this summer will determine if Pax stays or goes. But, I think the reason why they shipped out those players were that did they not fit the mold of the Skiles-Pax regime. I was very happy with the JC and Rose trades. I like the draft pick part of the Eddy Curry deal, but still wonder how we would be if he was here. The way I saw the Bulls last year w/Eddy was that they were a complete team. A team where player's weakness are covered by other teammate's strengths. Each player provided something. Who knows what we will do. Maybe Eddy Curry will turn into the NYK pick that lands us KG? Maybe the draft pick turns into Aldridge who can be the next Bosh or bust.

One thing that I will not like, is we do not go after the big men in FA hard, or he guts the team to land a superstar. We got the money, and we will not have the money for several years. When the clock strikes midnight, Pax better be calling the best big men and better not low-ball them. 

This summer determines if we win it all within five years or again, continue being the Bulls since '98 (exception of last year). 

I would rather make the lottery every year versus making the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed for several years running.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

So far, it seems to me that Pax has built a team that's inferior to the Warriors and Memphis and is about the same as the Clippers - though the Clippers are doing better than us.

Those three teams have something in common with each other and with us (us to a lesser degree). They are deep, but don't go deep in the playoffs.

All of the POTENTIAL to do better, it seems. But I'm really sick of being told about potential. I want to see it for real on the court.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> So far, it seems to me that Pax has built a team that's inferior to the Warriors and Memphis and is about the same as the Clippers - though the Clippers are doing better than us.
> 
> Those three teams have something in common with each other and with us (us to a lesser degree). They are deep, but don't go deep in the playoffs.
> 
> All of the POTENTIAL to do better, it seems. But I'm really sick of being told about potential. I want to see it for real on the court.


Then I suggest you watch the New York Titaknicks :clap:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> Then I suggest you watch the New York Titaknicks :clap:


I'm willing to give the Knicks an offseason and summer camp with their roster and coach before rushing to judgement. Without those things, Pax's first team won 23 games. Whoot whoot.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> So far, it seems to me that Pax has built a team that's inferior to the *Warriors* and Memphis and is about the same as the Clippers - though the Clippers are doing better than us.


The Warriors are the only team I get to watch regularly, and the Bulls are definitely not inferior to them at the moment. They're terrible. I think it's mainly coaching (LACK of coaching, more accurately), though I think GS gambled that Murphy and Dunleavy would improve, and neither really has. Richardson is a stud - better than anyone we have by a fair amount - but besides him, and maybe Diogu and Pietrus, I don't really like their collection of talent as much as I thought at the beginning of this season (especially since it's becoming apparent that Baron Davis will probably always have injury problems). We may be inferior to them in a "talent on paper" kind of way, but I think we'd beat them 7 out of 10 right now. 

If they can dump Monty and get a successful NBA coach, maybe they'll be improved next season. Part of their problem now is that they have no semblance of structure on offense and are clueless as a team on defense. That's on the coach, obviously.

back on the thread topic: I disagree with Grinch's thesis that Pax took over an improving team, but otherwise he raises valid issues. His free agency record is underwhelming at best. But Pax has been angling to make his heist this summer since he made the Rose deal, so I'm willing to give him his chance to make a splash. But much as I hate to give Mariotti props, he's right (I feel dirty just saying that) that this is Pax's crucible. If we take the court next year with a team that's not capable of being a top-4 playoff team in the east right away and duking it out with Miami and Detroit for EC supremacy shortly thereafter, I'll be disappointed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> The Warriors are the only team I get to watch regularly, and the Bulls are definitely not inferior to them at the moment. They're terrible. I think it's mainly coaching (LACK of coaching, more accurately), though I think GS gambled that Murphy and Dunleavy would improve, and neither really has. Richardson is a stud - better than anyone we have by a fair amount - but besides him, and maybe Diogu and Pietrus, I don't really like their collection of talent as much as I thought at the beginning of this season (especially since it's becoming apparent that Baron Davis will probably always have injury problems). We may be inferior to them in a "talent on paper" kind of way, but I think we'd beat them 7 out of 10 right now.
> 
> If they can dump Monty and get a successful NBA coach, maybe they'll be improved next season. Part of their problem now is that they have no semblance of structure on offense and are clueless as a team on defense. That's on the coach, obviously.


I am absolutely talking on paper.

The bulls' backcourt shouldn't be close to the Warriors'. They have two superstars, we have none. Even Derek Fisher at his old age is competitive with our bunch.

We have nobody close to Murphy.

Pietrus and Dunleavy give them two deep and young and high draft picks at SF. A similar situation to our own.

They are challenged at C, but so are we.


(Yikes, their SG rebounds like our starting SF and outrebounds our starting PF)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I am absolutely talking on paper.
> 
> The bulls' backcourt shouldn't be close to the Warriors'. They have two superstars, we have none. Even Derek Fisher at his old age is competitive with our bunch.
> 
> ...


Davis has missed a ton of games this year, and besides a strong start to the season, has been streaky and ineffective when he has played. Fisher occasionally scores in bunches, but he just isn't that good, IMO. I'd take Duhon over him to be honest. 

Murphy puts up some stats, but he does it on low fg% and has trouble operating down low. True, he's better than what we currently have, but he isn't a difference-maker and is sometimes a liability when his shot isn't falling (which is often). He rebounds well - I'll give him that.

Deng and Noc are much more effective night in and night out than Dunleavy and Pietrus, though Mickael doesn't get enough run sometimes. Dunleavy just disappears way too often.


Besides, games aren't won on paper


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

since when did "on paper" determine *anything*? but since the "on paper" thing is the subject isn't 30-46 record for the warrior "on paper"?

chemistry, coaching, cohesiveness all play a part in winning; the bull lost 2/3 of their mojo; chemistry and cohesiveness left by way of curry and davis AND yet the bull still can make the playoff (warriors?.... hmmm?); anything less would be a step backward. if fans can't see that, then i'd hazard they wait to get on the bandwagon when (and if) the team reaches championship status, like so many other "fairweathers"

that's why they play the games folks.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Davis has missed a ton of games this year, and besides a strong start to the season, has been streaky and ineffective when he has played. Fisher occasionally scores in bunches, but he just isn't that good, IMO. I'd take Duhon over him to be honest.
> 
> Murphy puts up some stats, but he does it on low fg% and has trouble operating down low. True, he's better than what we currently have, but he isn't a difference-maker and is sometimes a liability when his shot isn't falling (which is often). He rebounds well - I'll give him that.
> 
> ...


I think GS is closer to achieving success then the Bulls are. Both teams are similar. Chicago has NYs pick and cap space. GS has a ton of picks over the next few years but not alot of cap space. But the thing is this, GS really is poorly coached. Gulp, take Skiles off the Bulls and put him in GS and that team wins high 40s, maybe 50. GS has the better athletes, and frankly has the best player of either team by a wide margin in Richardson. Plus I think GS has among the leagues deepest tradable assets (Pietrus, Ike, Biedrins, Murphy could get you something). Baron Davis lost the plot after game 25-30. That has something to with Montgomery in my opinion. I think Monty is gone. Itll be interesting to see if Cohan goes with Keith Smart or Mario Elie (as been widely speculated) or if Mullin can orchestrate a bay area reunion with Don Nelson.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Davis has missed a ton of games this year, and besides a strong start to the season, has been streaky and ineffective when he has played. Fisher occasionally scores in bunches, but he just isn't that good, IMO. I'd take Duhon over him to be honest.
> 
> Murphy puts up some stats, but he does it on low fg% and has trouble operating down low. True, he's better than what we currently have, but he isn't a difference-maker and is sometimes a liability when his shot isn't falling (which is often). He rebounds well - I'll give him that.
> 
> ...


Quibble as we may be doing, here's the rub. Not on paper, but the actual results.

The contenders:
New Jersey 47-29 .618
Detroit 62-15 .805
Miami 50-27 .649
San Antonio 59-18 .766
Dallas 59-19 .756
Phoenix 50-26 .658

I mentioned GS, Memphis, and LAC:
Warriors 30-46 .395
Grizzlies 44-33 .571
Clippers 44-33 .571

And then there's the Bulls:
35-41 .461

With all of the Warrior's injury woes (~25 games missed by Davis is HUGE loss to them), they're just 5 wins worse than us. Seems pretty even to me at this point, all things considered.

The BIG question is what is it going to take to up the Bulls' record from ~35 wins to ~60 to put us in that upper tier of teams that it sure seems the champion will likely come from.

I'm talking a 25 game improvement. 25 games is a lot easier if you only won 15. Or 23 (we improved 24 games last season from 23 to 47 wins).

I'm talking about how do you avoid being trapped with the 2nd tier of teams listed (add Denver, Utah, Washington, New Orleans, Milwaukee, and a few others to that list) where you have no real chance to win it all and you're not getting choice lotto kinds of picks anymore.

The "needs a big home run" is a terrific way to put it. It's needed to gain those 25 wins. It's needed to avoid mediocrity.

And I still go back to Da Grinch's post. After 3 years and a pile of draft picks and talent to trade away (yes, Rose, Crawford, Curry, Marshall, AD's expiring contract, TT's expiring contract), we're here at roughly +5 wins more than we had before Pax took over. That's a REALLY big reason he needs a home run. To prove it was worth it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> I think GS is closer to achieving success then the Bulls are. Both teams are similar. Chicago has NYs pick and cap space. GS has a ton of picks over the next few years but not alot of cap space. But the thing is this, GS really is poorly coached. Gulp, take Skiles off the Bulls and put him in GS and that team wins high 40s, maybe 50. GS has the better athletes, and frankly has the best player of either team by a wide margin in Richardson. Plus I think GS has among the leagues deepest tradable assets (Pietrus, Ike, Biedrins, Murphy could get you something). Baron Davis lost the plot after game 25-30. That has something to with Montgomery in my opinion. I think Monty is gone. Itll be interesting to see if Cohan goes with Keith Smart or Mario Elie (as been widely speculated) or if Mullin can orchestrate a bay area reunion with Don Nelson.


I agree with a lot of this. The players on GS aren't bad per se. They aren't meshing, though. I don't have a high opinion of Murphy - he turns into a volume jump shooter and isn't a very good defender. I think Diogu should start getting his minutes just to see what he can do with a big role. While I certainly think Monty is a bad coach, to some extent I just think the GS roster is flawed as well. They have no identity besides hoping JRich carries them. If Diogu becomes a Brand-type interior player (though obviously not an MVP candidate), suddenly the complexion changes a lot. Then they can go inside-out or vice versa. Right now their offense is just a free for all. 

I think the Bulls are in a much better spot right now with their combination of cap room and 2 picks this year and a likely lottery pick next year as well. But if the Bulls don't vastly improve after this summer, who knows. GS is stuck with some pretty bad contracts, so I don't see how they get better unless another BD-type of firesale trade falls into their laps.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Quibble as we may be doing, here's the rub. Not on paper, but the actual results.
> 
> 
> Warriors 30-46 .395
> ...


To be fair, I was only comparing us to the Warriors, not the other teams you mentioned. And the actual results state in plain English that we're better than they are.

Yeah, not having Davis hurts, but that's one of the things you sign up for when you bring Baron Davis in. He's missed tons of games the last few years. Plus, they were pretty much in a tailspin even when he was in the lineup after their nice start.

The rest of your post is quite good. You're right that it needs to be a great summer. We disagree on the minutiae, but that's pretty much the norm, eh?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Da Grinch made one of the better posts on these boards a few days ago that directly addresses this topic:
> 
> 
> 
> Da Grinch: :cheers:


As usual, Da Grinch isn't quite accurate in his assesment... John Paxson took over the reins of the Bulls in April of 2003. So, he's had three summers - summer of '03, summer of '04 and the summer of '05 (not the 4 that the Grinch claims - this summer will be his fourth not his fifth that Grinch claims). The '02-'03 Bulls finished 30-52, which happened to be the best finish of the prior six seasons under Krause. The '03-'04 Bulls (pax's first year) finished 23-59. They took a step back. The '04-'05 Bulls finished 47-35 (Pax's second year) and the '05-'06 Bulls will finish somewhere around 38-44 (Pax's third year - give or take a game or two). Granted, Pax really hasn't had great free-agency success, but he also hasn't had much to work with. MLE every year and only half the MLE last season (Duhon). The last two off-seasons he's traded away the leading scorer on the team (Craw and Curry) and gotten very little in return (harrington, sweetney and cap space in '06). The return on those trades should be realised this summer (cap space for Crawford and the Knicks first). His drafts have been very solid if unspectacular. Signing Nocioni was a damn good FA pickup if you ask me - I don't even want to think of what our record would be without him this year.

This summer, his FOURTH, will really be what Pax uses to put his imprint on this team. Much like Krauses' drafting of Curry, Chandler and Crawford put his mark on the team. We'll just have to see what he does, but I believe that the makup of this team come October, 2006 will be quite a bit different than the current team.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

sorry to bust mariotti's et al bubble, but does ANYBODY actually believe there's a player (including KG) who'll be the catalyst for a 25 win improvement? an eye-opening turnaround would be 50 wins (a +12 turnaround if the bull finish 38-44), which KG *might * help achieve, barring giving away important pieces (who that is is debateable). also, just for debate sake, IF the bull pull off a major trade (KG or O'Neal) and don't remove too many from the first 6-7, AND finish with 47 wins again, will that be considered a failure? where will blame go then?

building championships just doesn't happen that way. anyone who can recall the incremental progress of the dynasty will recall the progress of getting swept by the piston, acquiring high picks (pip, grant, king, armstrong), and gradually moving jackson in as coach. that took 6+ years (from jordan's arrival), did it not?

further, post dynasty, "crumbs" krause had 5-6 years before he was shown the door; now paxson, who's improved every aspect of the team since he took over is under the gun to "hit a home run" after 3?

sorry to bust another bubble but, reinsdorf doesn't work that way either.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> As usual, Da Grinch isn't quite accurate in his assesment... John Paxson took over the reins of the Bulls in April of 2003. So, he's had *three summers* - summer of '03, summer of '04 and the summer of '05 (not the 4 that the Grinch claims - *this summer will be his fourth* not his fifth that Grinch claims).


OK, one of us is confused.



DaGrinch said:


> why not?
> the bulls were a rising team *3 years ago when pax took over*.
> 
> they were a 30 win team then ...*3 years later* they are on pace for 37-38 wins ....thats not much progress when you consider he inherited the nba's youngest team or close to it and has had 3 lotto picks plus (up to 5 *by next offseason* ) and *4 offseasons* in which to garner talent .
> ...









> The '02-'03 Bulls finished 30-52, which happened to be the best finish of the prior six seasons under Krause. The '03-'04 Bulls (pax's first year) finished 23-59. They took a step back. The '04-'05 Bulls finished 47-35 (Pax's second year) and the '05-'06 Bulls will finish somewhere around 38-44 (Pax's third year - give or take a game or two). Granted, Pax really hasn't had great free-agency success, but he also hasn't had much to work with. MLE every year and only half the MLE last season (Duhon). The last two off-seasons he's traded away the leading scorer on the team (Craw and Curry) and gotten very little in return (harrington, sweetney and cap space in '06). The return on those trades should be realised this summer (cap space for Crawford and the Knicks first). His drafts have been very solid if unspectacular. Signing Nocioni was a damn good FA pickup if you ask me - I don't even want to think of what our record would be without him this year.
> 
> This summer, his FOURTH, will really be what Pax uses to put his imprint on this team. Much like Krauses' drafting of Curry, Chandler and Crawford put his mark on the team. We'll just have to see what he does, but I believe that the makup of this team come October, 2006 will be quite a bit different than the current team.


His post in it's entirety



DaGrinch said:


> why not?
> the bulls were a rising team 3 years ago when pax took over.
> 
> they were a 30 win team then ...3 years later they are on pace for 37-38 wins ....thats not much progress when you consider he inherited the nba's youngest team or close to it and has had 3 lotto picks plus (up to 5 by next offseason ) and 4 offseasons in which to garner talent .
> ...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I agree with a lot of this. The players on GS aren't bad per se. They aren't meshing, though. I don't have a high opinion of Murphy - he turns into a volume jump shooter and isn't a very good defender. I think Diogu should start getting his minutes just to see what he can do with a big role. While I certainly think Monty is a bad coach, to some extent I just think the GS roster is flawed as well. They have no identity besides hoping JRich carries them. If Diogu becomes a Brand-type interior player (though obviously not an MVP candidate), suddenly the complexion changes a lot. Then they can go inside-out or vice versa. Right now their offense is just a free for all.
> 
> I think the Bulls are in a much better spot right now with their combination of cap room and 2 picks this year and a likely lottery pick next year as well. But if the Bulls don't vastly improve after this summer, who knows. GS is stuck with some pretty bad contracts, so I don't see how they get better unless another BD-type of firesale trade falls into their laps.


Good post. 

The one thing that I think that seperates them from the Bulls is that Mully actually has cahones. He isnt scared to put his neck on the line. They fleeced NO in a deal that Pax would never have made to get Davis, no matter what anyone thinks of Davis. They came this () close to getting Ron Artest in a deal Pax would have been to scared to do. Ultimately, the talent is a little better in GS, the coaching better in Chicago. GS has tons of picks (5 over the next 3 years including Phillys I believe) and terrible cap space. Chi has picks over the next 2 years from the Curry deal. If GS can fix its coaching situation, which is really easy compared to filling out a roster, I think not only are they the better team but it isnt particularly close, unless Pax does very well this summer. And even then, I think Mullys lack of fear in acquiring players gives them the edge, inspite of the really bad contracts they have. And they seem to have players they could trade who have value in the league and are open to dealing anyone. Would Pax deal Hinrich? I dont think so. Would Mully deal Jrich? Yes if it made GS better. Thats the difference.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> OK, one of us is confused.



Must be you and Da Grinch then. He's had three off-seasons, not four. Da Grinch's post seems to read that he's *had* four off-seasons and that's simply not correct. Pax hasn't had four offseasons to garner talent now, has he? Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Summer '03, Summer '04, Summer '05. Unless I've awoken into some sort of alternate reality, that's three summers and we've yet to experience the Summer of '06 (#4). The Summer of '07 will be his fifth. I don't think it can get much clearer than that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Must be you and Da Grinch then. He's had three off-seasons, not four. Da Grinch's post seems to read that he's *had* four off-seasons and that's simply not correct. Pax hasn't had four offseasons to garner talent now, has he? Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Summer '03, Summer '04, Summer '05. Unless I've awoken into some sort of alternate reality, that's three summers and we've yet to experience the Summer of '06 (#4). The Summer of '07 will be his fifth. I don't think it can get much clearer than that.


He said he's had 3 off-seasons:



DaGrinch said:


> *in the 3 offseasons* he has not gotten 1 starter quality player through free agency, he traded j rose jcraw eddy curry 3 starters he inherited and as of now the best player he has for those 3 is mike sweetney, who is not as good as any of them right now.




He never mentioned this mystical "5th offseason" you keep talking about. Quote me from his post where he talked about 5th season...

He did say that after this upcoming offseason, Pax would have had 4 offseasons to draft, trade, and acquire free agents.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I think Grinch might have just made a typo, because he said: 



> they were a 30 win team then ...3 years later they are on pace for 37-38 wins ....thats not much progress when you consider he inherited the nba's youngest team or close to it *and has had *3 lotto picks plus (up to 5 by next offseason ) *and 4 offseasons* in which to garner talent


the way he worded it implies that his meaning was that Pax has already had 4 offseasons...but it's not clear because of the part about the lotto picks in the middle.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I think Grinch might have just made a typo, because he said:
> 
> 
> 
> the way he worded it implies that his meaning was that Pax has already had 4 offseasons...but it's not clear because of the part about the lotto picks in the middle.


When I read it/parse it, the part about the lotto picks in the middle makes it 100% clear he's referring to this coming off season the rest of the sentence.

His point, albeit a negative slant on things, is that Pax has already had 3 offseasons and 3 lotto picks, plus inherited a team with talent. We're going into a 4th offseason where he'll have 2 more lotto picks. The implication is that if the first 3 seasons are an indication, the 4th won't be a whole lot better. Expectations game.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> When I read it/parse it, the part about the lotto picks in the middle makes it 100% clear he's referring to this coming off season the rest of the sentence.


Not to go all grammar-police on it, but it's structured poorly if that was what he meant. No big deal though - this isn't English class.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Not to go all grammar-police on it, but it's structured poorly if that was what he meant. No big deal though - this isn't English class.


I agree it's poor grammar. The key word in that sentence is "plus" (that's how I see it)

EDIT

*"and has had *3 lotto picks plus (up to 5 by next offseason ) *and 4 offseasons* in which to garner talent"

reads to me:
"he's had 3 lotto picks and it'll be 5 lotto picks and 4 offseasons (by next season) in which to garner talent."

But he doesn't even capitalize the beginning of sentences 

He's not loose (in the least) with the facts. He clearly states that Pax has had 3 offseasons, the number of lotto picks is correct, and so on.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Okay, time for a little bit of my patented Paxson propaganda.



> the bulls were a rising team 3 years ago when pax took over.


That was an illusion, as the first 16 games of the next season illustrated in excruciating detail. That team sucked and was in the crapper all season long and then went on a nice little run at the end that made them appear to be more respectable than they were.

They were 23 and 45 before going 7 and 7 in the final 14 meaningless games of the season. The next 16 meaningful games they played were the next season, and they went 4-12. They weren't "on the rise". They were aweful. 

After Paxson blew that team to bits, their winning percentage actually improved even with the likes of Linton Johnson and Ronald Dupree playing small forward instead of Jalen Rose.

If someone wants to say "Well, Paxson guaranteed playoffs with that team" (which, in fact, never happened - though that hardly seems to matter around here), then so be it. It doesn't make that team good, it just makes Paxson wrong.

That team ****ing sucked. I hated every damn minute of it.



> they were a 30 win team then ...3 years later they are on pace for 37-38 wins ....*thats not much progress when you consider he inherited the nba's youngest team or close to it and has had 3 lotto picks plus (up to 5 by next offseason )* and 4 offseasons in which to garner talent .


Well, this ignores the 47 win season, but I understand the point - we are talking about now, not last season. But its pretty darn good progress considering our current position. Hopefully it will be 2 straight playoff teams worth of progress, plus finally getting cap flexibility and extra picks. But of course, Grinch's point is that IF he doesn't put that stuff into play well, then he'd be in the hotseat. He's not saying he's in the hotseat now or that he's done a poor job. 

Also, we call it 3 offseasons, but really that first one is tough to count. Paxson took over and then was immediately hamstrung with Jay's motorcycle accident. When your best flexibility to make a move is having both Williams and Crawford, and you lose by far the more valuable asset of the two for nothing, it impacts your speed, flexibility, and ability to rebuild. 

I think this is often overlooked.



> in the 3 offseasons he has not gotten 1 starter quality player through free agency, he traded j rose jcraw eddy curry 3 starters he inherited and as of now the best player he has for those 3 is mike sweetney, who is not as good as any of them right now.


I kind of think Noc is starter quality and, regardless, he was an EXCELLENT free agent acquisition. Absolutely excellent. But lets again remember the cap limits Paxson had to operate within. Pippen. I get it. Not a good signing in hindsight. But since then I just don't know what Paxson could have done in free agency that he didn't do. 

I mean, if he dropped the ball, how did he drop it? What did he do wrong?



> this team has been pretty healthy and is barely hanging on to a playoff spot, in which they will either not make or be swept by the pistons because they will be overwhelmed inside by the wallaces and mcdyess inside.


Thats true, though a playoff appearance at all for such a remarkably young team with so much flexibility going forward is an oddity in the NBA. It is progress.

But if the point is that its time to deliver and improve significantly, I agree. Though I think the "he needs to deliver a 60 win team next season" is a tad ridiculous. Unless you draft Tim Duncan, its a process.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But if the point is that its time to deliver and improve significantly, I agree. Though I think the "he needs to deliver a 60 win team next season" is a tad ridiculous. Unless you draft Tim Duncan, its a process.



Nobody said he had to deliver a 60 win team next season. But given a couple of draft picks and all that cap space you like to root for and the chance to swap picks with the knicks next season, there's not much hope for a home run kind of offseason except for this one.

Especially if we're going to make the playoffs and get crushed each time by a much better/superior team. The benefit, you'd think, is playoff experience. The downside is your draft picks are pretty mediocre.

AND, with all the talent Pax inherited and the lotto picks so far and the offseason trading and FA opportunities, we are here where we are. .461 winning percentage and a sub-.500 record for 3 seasons.

As to what Pax could have done in his offseasons, all you have to do is look at the list of names that have moved to other teams and realize many of those were opportunities.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> AND, *with all the talent Pax inherited* and the lotto picks so far and the offseason trading and FA opportunities, we are here where we are. .461 winning percentage and a sub-.500 record for 3 seasons.


Who was the inherited talent? ERob? Jalen? Jamal? Big Ed? Jay?

Pax is responsible for Jay's injury now?

ERob would have become valuable if Pax had only handled it correctly?

Jalen, Jamal, and Ed have all gone on to be role players on the most dismal team in the league....

Which talent to we constantly bemoan?

I DO wish Pax had found a way to keep Elton, Ron Ron, and Brad.

DAMN PAX!


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Who was the inherited talent? ERob? Jalen? Jamal? Big Ed? Jay?
> 
> Pax is responsible for Jay's injury now?
> 
> ...


He needs to use his way-back machine!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Who was the inherited talent? ERob? Jalen? Jamal? Big Ed? Jay?
> 
> Pax is responsible for Jay's injury now?
> 
> ...


Trenton Hassell played 30 minutes a game the last two seasons for a 58 and 44 win team.

Donyell Marshall is currently playing for a team with 47 wins.

Eddy Curry played for our 47 win team. 

Heck, Adrian Griffin, last season's Co-Captain, has been starting and has played 24 minutes/game for a 59 win team.

Nah, no talent there.

NO matter how you slice and dice it, Pax traded away the leading scorer from our team the past three seasons: Rose, Crawford, Curry. You'd think a team's three leading scorers in a row are worth something more than Sweetney, Othella, and Pike.

The talent we have is for sure playing on a < 40 win team.

Of course there's potential. We've heard that story since MJ and PJax left.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Nobody said he had to deliver a 60 win team next season.


I misunderstood your post. 



> But given a couple of draft picks and all *that cap space you like to root for * and the chance to swap picks with the knicks next season, there's not much hope for a home run kind of offseason except for this one.


I assume we are all rooting for that cap space. And I don't agree that this necessarily must be the home-run offseason. Like I said, its a process. This offseason, at minimum, needs to set the table for the homerun. If Paxson can't get the superstar, it takes two to tango after all, then he needs to maximize his assets in the draft and free agency so that he can pull the trigger on that trade when he does find a dancing partner. 

Plus, that pick swap could be an important aspect of the Curry trade, in my opinion.



> Especially if we're going to make the playoffs and get crushed each time by a much better/superior team. The benefit, you'd think, is playoff experience. The downside is your draft picks are pretty mediocre.


Of course. Thats whats cool about the Knicks pick and the pick swap.



> AND, with all the talent Pax inherited and the lotto picks so far and the offseason trading and FA opportunities, we are here where we are. .461 winning percentage and a sub-.500 record for 3 seasons.


He didn't inherit much. History has undeniably proven this to be true. Not a single player from the team he inherited has gone on to be significant as anything more than a role player. That team was a big steaming pile of ****. 



> As to what Pax could have done in his offseasons, all you have to do is look at the list of names that have moved to other teams and realize many of those were opportunities.


No. Thats an absolute cop-out. Every circumstance is different and must be evaluated independently.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> NO matter how you slice and dice it, Pax traded away the leading scorer from our team the past three seasons: Rose, Crawford, Curry. You'd think a team's three leading scorers in a row are worth something more than Sweetney, Othella, and Pike.


You'd think so. On the other hand, with the first three you are talking about 1/4 of the roster of the biggest punchline in the 2006 NBA, so go figure.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Trenton Hassell played 30 minutes a game the last two seasons for a 58 and 44 win team.
> 
> Donyell Marshall is currently playing for a team with 47 wins.
> 
> ...


I'd take Griff, Trent, and Donyell back in a heartbeat.

Since Pax brought *Griff* in, though, he can hardly be considered part of "all the talent Pax inherited".

*Donyell* was the price to get rid of Rose and to bring in AD, a huge part of the change in attitude on the squad that won 47 games.

If Trent were still on this squad, he'd be the flavor of the year on the Anti-Pax agenda -- EVERY year! I guess the fact that he's starting for a team that finished behind us last season AND this season has some merit, though. I find it hard to believe that we are bemoaning his *2.5 assists, 2.7 rebounds, and 9.4 points* (by far his best statistical season of his career!) yet complain daily about the lack of production from any of Ben, Chris, or Kirk.

These are the poster boys for "the ones who got away" rally?!

Color me perplexed!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Paxson is a losing GM who will be entering his 4th season.

What he inherited, at this point, is irrelevant. I'm tired of writing and reading about it. Next year all the players and contracts on the roster will be his decision. The legacy contracts are flushed away. Next season is Paxson’s realized vision of what the Bulls should be. No excuses.

How many years do you give a GM with no track record other than having a career losing record to build something of note... and actually sustain it for more than one season? If next season is not a dramatic improvement over this team, at least 47 wins, he should be fired. Four seasons is all a rookie deserves.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> *Paxson is a losing GM * who will be entering his 4th season.
> 
> *What he inherited, at this point, is irrelevant. I'm tired of writing and reading about it. * Next year all the players and contracts on the roster will be his decision. The legacy contracts are flushed away. Next season is Paxson’s vision of what the Bulls should be.
> 
> How many years do you give a GM with no track record other than having *a career losing record* to build something of note... and actually sustain it for more than one season?


You know what makes it relevent, K4E? You. Fans who include the season Paxson blew up the team and then call him a "losing GM". Fans who talk about all the "talent" he inherited in condemning the present. That is what makes it relevent.

What he inherited, and how god-aweful it was, is relevent to his track record because he had to tear the house down to its foundation to rebuild it. 

I'm not even going to worry about the "fired" part because we all know he's not getting fired.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> *Next season is Paxson’s realized vision of what the Bulls should be.* No excuses.


On this you and I agree completely. I just don't understand the first three seasons of anti-Pax sentiment given that we both agree that *NEXT* season will be Pax's realized vision.

I also don't believe next season will be the best season..... but rather will be a good season and will set the table for a lot of future success.

So here's to our being in agreement, *Toni!* Savour it while it lasts!

:cheers:


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: 


PAX haters in full attack mode.......






Hide people....hide!!!!!!!!


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 


:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

the prior post should have added that the owner should be run out of town on a rail as well which most realistic fans will accept as not happening under any circumstances. since the author couldn't build a team, sign players, draft players or any such sort, frustration that spills over into nonsense like the aforementioned is pretty much laughable.

pax will improve the team, and not with "home runs", but BS like "pax is a losing GM" and "four years is all a rookie GM deserves" smacks of irreverent unknowledgeable basketball frustration, not what it actually means to BUILD A TEAM FROM NOTHING. further, would a veteran gm deserve more time?

and i'm in agreement with being tired of talking and writing about it; threads like these are a total waste, particularly after reading the above; toni kukoc plays for the bucks, maybe his fans should post threads hyping that team.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Pax Haters- Pax has basically pigeon-holed himself into something this summer. Please give him this summer to put his stamp on the club

Pax-Lovers- If Pax doesnt deliver the goods this summer, please give it a rest and realize that the guy failed. 

I think that is a fair request from both aisles. Pax has done some good, some bad, and a whole lot of nothing. He has had a spectacular hit (Deng for the future #1) and a spectacular f-up (his handling of Curry on the DNA was way over his head, and his post handling sounded like a kid who was given his job, which in reality, considering no one else even interviewed, isnt far from the truth). So no more Pax bashing to the opening of training camp. But if he doesnt deliver the goods this summer, then I dont want to hear anyone kissing his *** either. Capiche?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

man this thread is just like being back in the yard. *nobody backin' down fer nothin'*




go bulls!

:laugh:


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

why Mr. Paxson?????

why????


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You know what makes it relevent, K4E? You. Fans who include the season Paxson blew up the team and then call him a "losing GM". Fans who talk about all the "talent" he inherited in condemning the present. That is what makes it relevent.


It counts on his record because he guaranteed playoffs. I read the letters he wrote to the season ticket holders guaranteeing playoffs. It happened. That's why it counts on his record.

Paxson is a loser and his way is the wrong NBA way, IMO. Its sad for me that his misguided philosophies are now running the team I grew up loving. I hope I'm wrong and next season we get back to 47 wins. If not, he should be fired. 



> What he inherited, and how god-awefully it was,


And he did inherit good players. Losing one of these aweful players sent us into a death spiral this season, and abruptly changed the focus of the team from getting a legit 2 guard to doing one of the hardest things in the NBA, aquring an effective big man. Crawford is a good NBA player. Marshall is a good NBA player. Hassell is an OK NBA player. We saw last season that Chandler can be very effective when surrounded by the right players.

Also, as we saw last season, passing final judgment on a young Bulls team right after the circus trip isn’t always a good idea.



> I'm not even going to worry about the "fired" part because we all know he's not getting fired.


IMO, you shoud worry about it, if you ever want the Bulls to become great again. We'll see how it plays out. I think Paxson's Chicago Grizzlies will be mediocre at best, although the Knicks pick could change things... I hope that stroke of luck pays off.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Why Mr. paxson??? why??? Mr.Paxso nnneds to be fIRED IMMEDIATELY.......I'm leading a pack of 10..and heading to the BERTO center


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

:no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok, that's enough of that unBULL. we get it.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> IMO, you shoud worry about it, if you ever want the Bulls to become great again. We'll see how it plays out. I think the Paxson's Chicago Grizzlies will be mediocre at best, although the Knicks pick could change things... *I hope that stroke of luck pays off.*


The table is already set. Pax trades Big Ed for a pick. If the pick is good, it's a "stroke of luck". If the pick is average or worse, woe are we that bad Mr. Paxson gave away our Eddy for nuttin'. We certainly have set up a no-*Wynn!* situation very handily.

Gotta love consistency, though. May not be the spice of life that variety claims to be, but it sure saves me from having to think about a lot of interesting new ideas from some of you kids!


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> ok, that's enough of that unBULL. we get it.



Sorry mizenkay,

But....

*edit - baiting specific posters isn't how we do things around here!*

those guys still dont get IT though.......


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

what are you talking about?

they get it. you are hell bent on something else entirely.

careful, or this thread will get locked.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Gotta love consistency, though. May not be the spice of life that variety claims to be, but it sure saves me from having to think about a lot of interesting new ideas from some of you kids!


Have not heard much new out of you either.

These "discussions" really are pointless. We all know how each other feels.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> These "discussions" really are pointless. We all know how each other feels.


Amen.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Have not heard much new out of you either.


My bad!

The kids are doing well. Martha's about to finish the third grade -- all As!

Mom came through the surgery just fine. Still has trouble walking without carrying that bowling ball in her left hand. Says it has something to do with her balance....

Sally's pregnant again. Her last litter was so adorable! We're hoping for a better mix this time. Not sure if the poppa's that mutt Trigger from two doors down or the Cocker... guess a look at the babies will tell us once and for all.

Drew says "hey!", wishes you were here.

That's about it.

I'll keep you posted.

Thanks!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Wynn!* You left out the most important detail.

Do you still like pie like I like pie? MMMMMMMMM, pie!

Coconut cream, please.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> It counts on his record because he guaranteed playoffs. I read the letters he wrote to the season ticket holders guaranteeing playoffs. It happened. That's why it counts on his record.


I didn't say it doesn't count on his record. You said you get tired of reading about what he inherited. Well, the only reason you read about it is because people like you ignore it while calling him a "loser" and then it needs to be mentioned. 

Thats all I'm saying. 



> Paxson is a loser and his way is the wrong NBA way, IMO. Its sad for me that his misguided philosophies are now running the team I grew up loving. I hope I'm wrong and next season we get back to 47 wins. If not, he should be fired.


Yeah, I get that.



> And he did inherit good players. Losing one of these aweful players sent us into a *death spiral* this season, and abruptly changed the focus of the team from getting a legit 2 guard to doing one of the hardest things in the NBA, aquring an effective big man. Crawford is a good NBA player. Marshall is a good NBA player. Hassell is an OK NBA player. We saw last season that Chandler can be very effective when surrounded by the right players.


Death spiral. 

Anyway, good players does not necessarily mean good team. That team was ****. Total dog ****. 



> IMO, you shoud worry about it, if you ever want the Bulls to become great again. We'll see how it plays out. I think Paxson's Chicago Grizzlies will be mediocre at best, although the Knicks pick could change things... I hope that stroke of luck pays off.


Trade with bad result = incompetent GM.

Trade with good result = lucky GM.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Trade with good result = lucky GM.


Did you think the Knicks would be as bad as they are this year?

I seem to remember no.

We're lucky they are this bad.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Pax Haters- Pax has basically pigeon-holed himself into something this summer. Please give him this summer to put his stamp on the club
> 
> Pax-Lovers- If Pax doesnt deliver the goods this summer, please give it a rest and realize that the guy failed.
> 
> I think that is a f<layer id="googlebar_highlight" style="-moz-user-select: -moz-all; background-color: yellow;">air</layer> request from both aisles. Pax has done some good, some bad, and a whole lot of nothing. He has had a spectacular hit (Deng for the future #1) and a spectacular f-up (his handling of Curry on the DNA was way over his head, and his post handling sounded like a kid who was given his job, which in reality, considering no one else even interviewed, isnt far from the truth). So no more Pax bashing to the opening of training camp. But if he doesnt deliver the goods this summer, then I dont want to hear anyone kissing his *** either. Capiche?


I don't think anyone could have summed up the purpose of this thread any better.

I guess I'm a pax "hater" (I don't hate him, I just want a better GM) by some peoples' measure. In that sense, I'm actually in agreement with you 100%. I'm willing to give him this summer to put another stamp on this club (it already bears his stamp throughout).

But that IS the point of this thread. Paxson needs a big home run THIS SUMMER.

As for expectations, mine have never been high, nor are they this summer. I expect us to get a good draft pick or two out of the draft and virtually nothing elsewhere (trade, FA signings). Nothing more that I'd like to see than be proven wrong. I'm a big boy and can handle that if we're winning AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, looking like we're going to be a top tier team. 

I don't measure our success by winning the actual championship - that's a standard that 1 or 2 GMs meet over a period of years. I do measure our success by being an actual contender for the championship - like Seattle, Utah, Phoenix, Knicks were during our dynasty, or like the Mavs, Kings (until recently), Suns, and the other teams I listed in a previous post.

I want to see us TRY to win it all with our all. Not try to maintain cap space or pure potential.

Whoever our coach is, I want him to have a full arsenal, not having to start a guy like Songaila (who couldn't barely get off the bench for the Kings and they didn't care to re-sign him).

I don't want to see our best players go out in a revolving door policy or end up in some invisible dog house on the end of the bench. And I _really_ want to see the players treated well and respected - they are the actual bookable assets of the franchise.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Did you think the Knicks would be as bad as they are this year?
> 
> I seem to remember no.
> 
> We're lucky they are this bad.


Yes. But that trade was made, in part, with the knowledge that it could yield a high pick - note that Paxson negotiated no protections on the pick. A rarity in today's NBA.

If that trade ends up working to the benefit of Chicago, then thats the end of it. No luck, no nothin'. Just evaluate the trade. Thats all I mean.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Am I the only one who believes this year was supposed to be another year filled with progress and maybe even a push further into the playoffs. But no, all we got was Sweetney, Thomas, and a mediocre team who will likely win about 37 games total. Undeniably the exact opposite of what was supposed to happen this season. That, to me, is the fault of the GM as much as it is the fault of the players (I won't say the coach, because he may sometimes make stupid plays in important games, but Skiles is a great coach at the end of the day). My opinion is not as valid as others on this board though, because I wasn't around for all those bad years of losing. But I can say that, after last year's success, that this season has been a wash, and that Paxson has failed to make this team better *so far*.

Now, like everyone else who wants this team to succeed in the next 5 or so years, I want Paxson to do everything he can to get us within 50 wins next season, and then build off of that after that season, and *not tank in two years if we actually get 50 wins next season*. (What I mean is not repeat what we did this year.) If he can't do that, then by all means, fire the guy. I don't want someone who can't improve the team overall in almost four to five years of making trades and drafting guys. (This means sometime during next season.) I want wins and results!

Like some of you guys, I'm tired of waiting and hearing the same bull**** all year long. But since I have no power or control over what happens, I have to wait. (Again, I hate doing that, lol.)

GO BULLS IN 06-07!!! :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Sorry, but I don't think it's in our best interests to put pressure on Pax, and kick him out him if the team fails to improve much next season.

The guy has taken what Krause had and has done a compete rebuild. I believe only Chandler remains. We now have many young, hardworking, talented and inconsistent players who are improving and will be come more consistent over time. We have draft picks and cap space.

If we use the draft picks and save much of our cap space for resigning our core after their rookie contracts expire (perhaps our most prudent things to do), then we shouldn't improve dramatically in 2006-2007 season. If he follows this path, then I think we need to give Pax more time. Heck, we're likely a playoff team as it is, and if we can keep the core together and add players to it for the future, then we should only get better as the core moves into the prime of their careers.

If we eliminate Pax, then that is a step backwards in my mind. We'll likely get a new GM in with a new vision of where we should go. He'll probably trade away assests to fit into his vision, and we could end up even further back in rebuild mode (or with old vets and a narrow window).

In my mind, all we need is stability and time to improve. Being impacient may only enlongate the process of building a contender.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> Sorry, but I don't think it's in our best interests to put pressure on Pax, and kick him out him if the team fails to improve much next season.
> 
> The guy has taken what Krause had and has done a compete rebuild. I believe only Chandler remains. We now have many young, hardworking, talented and inconsistent players who are improving and will be come more consistent over time. We have draft picks and cap space.
> 
> If we use the draft picks and save much of our cap space for resigning our core after their rookie contracts expire (perhaps our most prudent things to do), then we shouldn't improve dramatically in 2006-2007 season.


I think we have to use our capspace, instead of saving it. We don't have the talent and personal to have internal growth leading us to the promise land. We desperately need a big man, and one big man (NYK pick) will not be sufficient. Who knows if that rookie will be a star or bust. I'm sick of losing, and if the opportunties are available to strengthen the team, then we got to use it. Hell if we are going to save cap space at all, I rather save it for next offseason. But, chances are those FA's will sign w/their own teams for the max.

The Bulls would pay for the winner, and none of our guys will require a Max contract during the FA. Kirk, Gordon, and Deng will get average money.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I think we have to use our capspace, instead of saving it. We don't have the talent and personal to have internal growth leading us to the promise land. We desperately need a big man, and one big man (NYK pick) will not be sufficient. Who knows if that rookie will be a star or bust. I'm sick of losing, and if the opportunties are available to strengthen the team, then we got to use it. Hell if we are going to save cap space at all, I rather save it for next offseason. But, chances are those FA's will sign w/their own teams for the max.
> 
> The Bulls would pay for the winner, and none of our guys will require a Max contract during the FA. Kirk, Gordon, and Deng will get average money.


I see your point. And I should add that I think we should spend for 1 good post player this year.

However, I think we also may need to be conservative with our cash so that we have more to spend in the future. We'll have 2 high picks this year that will also likely need to be resigned, and Noc could also demand a bit more dough. If Deng, Hinrich and Gordon continue to improve, they may not be cheap (although likely far less than the max). I think internal growth can lead us a long ways between our current players and our picks. We are very young and have a lot of improving talent in last year's rookies, along with Hinrich & Chandler. We chose not to keep Curry and Crawford after their rookie contracts were up. I don't want to see that pattern occuring moving forward. Not spending some of our cash in a weak free agent year (or spending some of it on shorter term contracts) to help ensure the the resigning of our future seems like a potentially smart move to me.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> As usual, Da Grinch isn't quite accurate in his assesment... John Paxson took over the reins of the Bulls in April of 2003. So, he's had three summers - summer of '03, summer of '04 and the summer of '05 (not the 4 that the Grinch claims - this summer will be his fourth not his fifth that Grinch claims). The '02-'03 Bulls finished 30-52, which happened to be the best finish of the prior six seasons under Krause. The '03-'04 Bulls (pax's first year) finished 23-59. They took a step back. The '04-'05 Bulls finished 47-35 (Pax's second year) and the '05-'06 Bulls will finish somewhere around 38-44 (Pax's third year - give or take a game or two). Granted, Pax really hasn't had great free-agency success, but he also hasn't had much to work with. MLE every year and only half the MLE last season (Duhon). The last two off-seasons he's traded away the leading scorer on the team (Craw and Curry) and gotten very little in return (harrington, sweetney and cap space in '06). The return on those trades should be realised this summer (cap space for Crawford and the Knicks first). His drafts have been very solid if unspectacular. Signing Nocioni was a damn good FA pickup if you ask me - I don't even want to think of what our record would be without him this year.
> 
> This summer, his FOURTH, will really be what Pax uses to put his imprint on this team. Much like Krauses' drafting of Curry, Chandler and Crawford put his mark on the team. We'll just have to see what he does, but I believe that the makup of this team come October, 2006 will be quite a bit different than the current team.


my post was about the bulls after the next offseaon ...so it was a post about where the bulls are and where i feel they are supposed to be.

i said nothing about 5th of anything other than he may have aquired 5 lotto picks (if the bulls dont make the playoffs) Fl_flash i dont mind people disagreeing with me in fact , i like talking about the bulls alot which is why i post here , but you have to actually respond to whats in my post, not some fiction you attibute to it, its ironic you are guilty of the same crime you say i'm guilty of.

i said clearly pax has been on the job for 3 years, i didn't think my post was that hard to follow.

pax may change the team dramatically , then again he may not , I feel he has to, the team he has built to me isn't really going to do much.

he took a team that i thought had a future and torpedoed it to build a team at the moment only marginally better , he could have had the team on auto pilot and the squad could have just as good just because of the growth of its younger players , if not better...probably significantly better .

the bulls as they are now have no interior players outside of tyson really...the team pax inherited led the league in points in the paint for a good portion of the 2002-03 season...some bad things happened that were beyond pax's control like fizer getting hurt and jay will's stupidity, but he has been able to replace the guards but not the power players and thats why the bulls are where they are in the nba a team that will likely have a losing record.

has pax actually gotten a post player worth squat yet?

why in pax's several draft picks have no post players ever played a regular season game .

why is pax's best power player FA signing darius songalia? in fact i dont think he has yet signed a starter quality player in free agency.

i like pax but i think he sees the game as a guard and GM's have to be able to guage all positions on the floor, much like his head coach....but if i'm wrong i should know this summer , but if pax cant get 1 or 2 very good interior players the bulls wont be much if at all better than they were this season, and it wont be because the bulls are untalented , the bulls are very talented , but their talent is concentrated on the perimeter when it would be better if it were spread out a bit more.

most teams only have the MLE to work with and some teams do very well. krause's last MLE signing was i think was donyell marshall , i have yet to see a pax signing equal marshall's productivity , if pax can only get players of starting ability if he has max contracts to throw around it doesn't say much about him.

but like i said time will tell and if he cant get some things done he should be in the hot seat because this is what he sold us ....wait 3 years and when he has the cap space he will make the bulls great.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> most teams only have the MLE to work with and some teams do very well. krause's last MLE signing was i think was donyell marshall , i have yet to see a pax signing equal marshall's productivity , if pax can only get players of starting ability if he has max contracts to throw around it doesn't say much about him.


I agree with some of your main points, but Pax's problem isn't with the MLE. He signed Pippen to a 2 year MLE, Noc to a 3 year deal using most of the MLE the next year and split it on Duhon and Songalia last year. I think Noc is basically equal to Donyell. And Duhon and Songalia were solid value. Pippen was done but the deal was short. 

Pax is good on the minor pickup...the singles...but like Jay says, the man needs a home run in the next 4 to 15 months OR a huge payroll down the line from JR


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey]


> Okay, time for a little bit of my patented Paxson propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> That was an illusion, as the first 16 games of the next season illustrated in excruciating detail. That team sucked and was in the crapper all season long and then went on a nice little run at the end that made them appear to be more respectable than they were.


he took over in april of 2003 ...its 4/2006 if you dont think thats 3 years i pity you.



> They were 23 and 45 before going 7 and 7 in the final 14 meaningless games of the season. The next 16 meaningful games they played were the next season, and they went 4-12. They weren't "on the rise". They were aweful.
> 
> After Paxson blew that team to bits, their winning percentage actually improved even with the likes of Linton Johnson and Ronald Dupree playing small forward instead of Jalen Rose.
> 
> ...


the 2002-03 season had its moments it finished 9-11 while beating several playoff teams who definitely had something to play for....it also had a stretch when it went 13-15 going in a tailspin when fizer went down, it was really a matter of giving rose help , when rose had help to close out games the bulls were basically as good as they are now as 13-15 + 9-11 is pretty close to the bulls record now as far as winning %..., just because you have a warped recalling of the season dont bring everyone else down.




> *Well, this ignores the 47 win season*, but I understand the point - we are talking about now, not last season. But its pretty darn good progress considering our current position. Hopefully it will be 2 straight playoff teams worth of progress, plus finally getting cap flexibility and extra picks. But of course, Grinch's point is that IF he doesn't put that stuff into play well, then he'd be in the hotseat. He's not saying he's in the hotseat now or that he's done a poor job.


i also ignored the 23 win season , i am only talking about the team as it is now ...somehow you you missed that. 



> Also, we call it 3 offseasons, but really that first one is tough to count. Paxson took over and then was immediately hamstrung with Jay's motorcycle accident. When your best flexibility to make a move is having both Williams and Crawford, and you lose by far the more valuable asset of the two for nothing, it impacts your speed, flexibility, and ability to rebuild.
> 
> I think this is often overlooked.


why is the 1st one tough to count? bad things happen to people all the time its literally his job to deal with it and move on. behind every team there is some mishap of some kind or another. the pistons were defending champs and had their coach wooes away by the cavs and then the knicks I dont remember you throwing a pity party for them...and you shouldn't have its dumars' job to deal with that stuff like paxson's when things happen under his watch. he came into an extremely wealthy franchise in a big market full of young talent , so lets not act like he was left the runts of the litter in nba franchises , they were a 30 win team that was everyone's pick to be in the playoffs the next season...also Pax's "No excuses" motto was a an unsaid declaration that he thought so too...and everyone knows it.




> I kind of think Noc is starter quality and, regardless, he was an EXCELLENT free agent acquisition. Absolutely excellent. But lets again remember the cap limits Paxson had to operate within. Pippen. I get it. Not a good signing in hindsight. But since then I just don't know what Paxson could have done in free agency that he didn't do.
> 
> I mean, if he dropped the ball, how did he drop it? What did he do wrong?
> 
> ...


there are good starters and bad ones , technically adonal foyle is a starter but when i am posting about starters i mean decent ones , if nocioni started at the 3 he would be in the lower 3rd of starters in the league most likely , certainly below avg., he would rank lower as a 4, , the bucks got bobby simmons , heck the pistons got chauncey billups with MLE, they also signed mcdyess, good players are available, it is possible to use the MLE to get starters...pax just hasn't done it. 

not attacking him just stating a fact.

unlike you , i never posted anything like pax needs to deliver a 60 win season  , i find people putting words in my mouth "a tad ridiculous" i accept its a process but if you are going to promise something ...deliver.

john paxson traded away players under the guise of character and a new culture, i dont see it.

38 wins is mediocrity the bulls were no longer horrible in 2002-03 they had become mediocre...pax could have left rose on the team and just let JC, EC and TC grow amonst others (hassell, 2 number &7's plus a #3, donyell, plus 2nd rounders and FA aqusitions) and i think they could have easily have been a team who could have grown more than 7 or 8 wins in 3 years....to say otherwise is ridiculous.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I agree with some of your main points, but Pax's problem isn't with the MLE. He signed Pippen to a 2 year MLE, Noc to a 3 year deal using most of the MLE the next year and split it on Duhon and Songalia last year. I think Noc is basically equal to Donyell. And Duhon and Songalia were solid value. Pippen was done but the deal was short.
> 
> Pax is good on the minor pickup...the singles...but like Jay says, the man needs a home run in the next 4 to 15 months OR a huge payroll down the line from JR


i agree pax is good at the small pickup , but GM's have more than the MLE to aquire talent , Noc is a good backup , but he is no fulltime starter , he is worth what he is paid, but andres hasn't done what marshall has done , he may be his equal now but only because donyell is slowing down, i dont see nocioni getting you 16 and 11 ...mistakes happen i only really care about the bottom line and if pax could hit enough singles to make the bulls a a contender you would never hear a peep out of me saying something is wrong with his decions ...but he cant and everyone knows .

he set the bulls up to make that move this summer , so to me he has to deliver, because this is what we have been waiting on since he traded jalen and marshall .


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> *Wynn!* You left out the most important detail.
> 
> Do you still like pie like I like pie? MMMMMMMMM, pie!
> 
> Coconut cream, please.


Splooge cream for Wynn (or miz) :angel:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Interesting! To the paxson haters: About this summer, what do you consider Paxson SHOULD do. If he does something else, did he fail? 

I agree this summer is crucial. He has tremendous flexibility and some picks. A lot can be done with that. 

As for those that want to get rid of John next fall, who do you want brought in? 

I keep thinking of NY. Were they a .500 club when IT took over? If you want to bring someone else in, it better be someone with plenty of experience. Of course John never had any experience...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaGrinch said:


> unlike you , i never posted anything like pax needs to deliver a 60 win season  , i find people putting words in my mouth "a tad ridiculous" i accept its a process but if you are going to promise something ...deliver.


He was refering to my posts, in which I say the Bulls have to improve to 60 wins to reach the goal of contending for the championship (vs. contending for the 8th seed against a 60 win team).

The thing is that with a chance at the #1 pick (should be top 4) plus the Bulls' pick plus all that cap space we've accumulated (at the cost of actual talent on the court al the while), this is really the only shot he has. Next season, cap space will be gone, and the Bulls have a draft pick like everyone else (yes, it can swap with NY, but their record is not in our control).

There's real risk even with the situation we're in now. Suppose Pax does take a swing for the fences with all the assets he has. We could end up being like the Kings - a pretty strong team during the regular season, but rarely a championship contender once the playoffs start. All that until the players get too old.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> *kukoc4ever* Next season is Paxson’s realized vision of what the Bulls should be


I agree with this sentence even though I disagreed with a much of your post. I can say that both camps will not argue with this statement. There may be a few that will defend John no matter what, but I am guessing by what I think, those of us that like John and are willing to gvie him a chance, realize that this summer is huge for him and the team. He knows what we need. Can he deliver? We shall see.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
> 
> 
> PAX haters in full attack mode.......
> ...


ok, ok, calm down lol. They are entitled to their opinion. It's their team too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Interesting! To the paxson haters: About this summer, what do you consider Paxson SHOULD do. If he does something else, did he fail?
> 
> I agree this summer is crucial. He has tremendous flexibility and some picks. A lot can be done with that.
> 
> ...


I would have been MUCH happier if BJ Armstrong was hired. He does have plenty of experience and it sure looked like he was being groomed for the job.

Ideally, we would have given the GM and coaching job to PJax before he signed with LA.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Pax Haters- Pax has basically pigeon-holed himself into something this summer. Please give him this summer to put his stamp on the club
> 
> Pax-Lovers- If Pax doesnt deliver the goods this summer, please give it a rest and realize that the guy failed.
> 
> I think that is a fair request from both aisles. Pax has done some good, some bad, and a whole lot of nothing. He has had a spectacular hit (Deng for the future #1) and a spectacular f-up (his handling of Curry on the DNA was way over his head, and his post handling sounded like a kid who was given his job, which in reality, considering no one else even interviewed, isnt far from the truth). So no more Pax bashing to the opening of training camp. But if he doesnt deliver the goods this summer, then I dont want to hear anyone kissing his *** either. Capiche?


Thats a fair observation and assessment!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I would have been MUCH happier if BJ Armstrong was hired. He does have plenty of experience and it sure looked like he was being groomed for the job.
> 
> Ideally, we would have given the GM and coaching job to PJax before he signed with LA.


I like BJ, but I wonder if JR wanted to clean house completely and the fact that BJ was associated with JK and that in itself did him in?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I like BJ, but I wonder if JR wanted to clean house completely and the fact that BJ was associated with JK and that in itself did him in?


I don't think Pax was a complete enough "outsider" to consider his hiring part of some house cleaning.

If that were the objective, you'd hire completely outside the organization - like they did with Skiles (who wasn't a bulls former player or a current broadcaster/mouthpiece for the team)


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> I like BJ, but I wonder if JR wanted to clean house completely and the fact that BJ was associated with JK and that in itself did him in?


I think JR needed someone who was going to give the job a completely different image and Pax was that person more than anyone simply because of his relationship with the press in Chicago. 20 plus years with a lot of these people now. Reporters loved him as a player, got to know him better when he worked in radio and genuinely like the guy a lot. That has, and continues to be, a big plus for the organization.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think Pax was a complete enough "outsider" to consider his hiring part of some house cleaning.
> 
> If that were the objective, you'd hire completely outside the organization - like they did with Skiles (who wasn't a bulls former player or a current broadcaster/mouthpiece for the team)


I dont get your point??? As an announcer on ESPN1000, John had a voice in what JK and BJ did for the team? When I said clean house I was talking about people in management. John was an announcer, though he was associated with the team, he was not in a decision making capacity.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I dont get your point??? As an announcer on ESPN1000, John had a voice in what JK and BJ did for the team? When I said clean house I was talking about people in management. John was an announcer, though he was associated with the team, he was not in a decision making capacity.


His involvement with the team spanned well over 20 years. I don't consider that to be some sort of outsider, management or not.

Skiles had zero affiliation with the team that I know of, in his whole life, other than to play against us as an opponent or coach against us when he was with Phoenix.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i agree pax is good at the small pickup , but GM's have more than the MLE to aquire talent , Noc is a good backup , but he is no fulltime starter , he is worth what he is paid, but andres hasn't done what marshall has done , he may be his equal now but only because donyell is slowing down, i dont see nocioni getting you 16 and 11 ...mistakes happen i only really care about the bottom line and if pax could hit enough singles to make the bulls a a contender you would never hear a peep out of me saying something is wrong with his decions ...but he cant and everyone knows .
> 
> he set the bulls up to make that move this summer , so to me he has to deliver, because this is what we have been waiting on since he traded jalen and marshall .


With the team that Paxson inherited, alll he had was the MLE, Max Player Jalen and 2 bigmen that didn't know how to keep their shorts on, let alone know how to play the game. This is the 1st season Paxson has payroll flexiblility. The 1st season that Paxson doesn't have a Krause "max worthy" player. Instead of just an allowance, Pax finally has the wallet. 

Andres hasn't done what Marshall has done? I liked Marshall when he was on the Bulls but this year Noch is by far the better player. I have always thought Marshall was too laid back and never got the most out of his talent. The only thing Marshall did better than Andres was shoot, this year from 3, Donyell is 31%, Andres 39%. so even shooting the 3 is a something that Andres does better.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I would just like to add that characterizing Paxson's inherited team as anything other than awful (i.e. a team on the rise) would be incorrect. Paxson inherited total garbage, although he was appearantly fooled into making his "no excuses" claim by the way that team finished the season. If we're going to interpret his slogan as some great sign of GM failure  then so be it. God forbid he have some expectations.

The core of Krause's Bulls team is now the core for the worst team in the league; is that not sufficient proof for the lack of talent of those players?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Whoa, dude. Whats up?




> he took over in april of 2003 ...its 4/2006 if you dont think thats 3 years i pity you.


It is three years. Did I say otherwise? To paraphrase Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning, I think you are confusing me with some whole other body.



> the 2002-03 season had its moments it finished 9-11 while beating several playoff teams who definitely had something to play for....it also had a stretch when it went 13-15 going in a tailspin when fizer went down, it was really a matter of giving rose help , when rose had help to close out games the bulls were basically as good as they are now as 13-15 + 9-11 is pretty close to the bulls record now as far as winning %..., just because you have a warped recalling of the season dont bring everyone else down.


Warped? They were 23-45 and finished with a 7 and 7 run. Thats what happened. They were in the cellar until then. It was fools gold. 



> i also ignored the 23 win season , i am only talking about the team as it is now ...somehow you you missed that.


I didn't miss it. Read the words right after the part you bolded - "but I understand the point - we are talking about now, not last season". See?



> why is the 1st one tough to count? bad things happen to people all the time its literally his job to deal with it and move on.


Well, thats what he did. He dealt with it by drafting Hinrich and moved on. But losing the #2 overall pick in the draft for nothing is a factor. It happened. 



> behind every team there is some mishap of some kind or another. the pistons were defending champs and had their coach wooes away by the cavs and then the knicks I dont remember you throwing a pity party for them...and you shouldn't have its dumars' job to deal with that stuff like paxson's when things happen under his watch.


Look dude, I don't know what your beef is. All I'm saying is that it has to be part of the analysis. 



> he came into an extremely wealthy franchise in a big market full of young talent , so lets not act like he was left the runts of the litter in nba franchises , they were a 30 win team that was everyone's pick to be in the playoffs the next season...also Pax's "No excuses" motto was a an unsaid declaration that he thought so too...and everyone knows it.


Well, I think I've made it pretty clear what I think of that team. They sucked monkey balls. As for Paxson, I know what he said. He was wrong. That team was aweful. 



> there are good starters and bad ones , technically adonal foyle is a starter but when i am posting about starters i mean decent ones , if nocioni started at the 3 he would be in the lower 3rd of starters in the league most likely , certainly below avg., he would rank lower as a 4, , the bucks got bobby simmons , heck the pistons got chauncey billups with MLE, they also signed mcdyess, good players are available, it is possible to use the MLE to get starters...pax just hasn't done it.
> 
> not attacking him just stating a fact.


I don't consider it a fact. Nocioni is a starting caliber player. 



> unlike you , i never posted anything like pax needs to deliver a 60 win season  , i find people putting words in my mouth "a tad ridiculous" i accept its a process but if you are going to promise something ...deliver.


As DaBullz noted, I wasn't referring to you.



> john paxson traded away players under the guise of character and a new culture, i dont see it.


You think the culture now mimics the culture in 2002-03 and the start of 2003-04? Wow. That team made me want to stab my eyes out. I was literally embarrassed as a fan by how they approached the game. My idea of fun basketball isn't watching an unorganized team jack shots, refuse to play defense, and whine to the officials every other time down the floor. But thats just me. I don't like that kind of mess. 



> 38 wins is mediocrity the bulls were no longer horrible in 2002-03 they had become mediocre...pax could have left rose on the team and just let JC, EC and TC grow amonst others (hassell, 2 number &7's plus a #3, donyell, plus 2nd rounders and FA aqusitions) and i think they could have easily have been a team who could have grown more than 7 or 8 wins in 3 years....to say otherwise is ridiculous.


Based on the "accomplishements" of those players since they left, I'd say its far from ridiculuous. But if you pine for those days then more power to ya. Personally, I'd rather eat a dirt sandwich.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Isn't it a little bit hypocritical on one hand to excuse Paxson for JWill's injury yet ignore the fact that the team's best player (and best player since MJ left, aside from arguably Brand) came to camp with a cast on his wrist?

In the Bulls' 30 win season, they started 4-14. At the time Pax traded Rose/Marshall and fired Cartwright, the Bulls were 4-14.

(Before people quibble with my assessment of Rose, he did put up 23/5/5 sort of numbers, was the only player on our roster mentioned as a possible all-star, and yes we had Artest and Miller but they weren't as good as Rose when they were Bulls).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Isn't it a little bit hypocritical on one hand to excuse Paxson for JWill's injury yet ignore the fact that the team's best player (and best player since MJ left, aside from arguably Brand) came to camp with a cast on his wrist?


Excuse Paxson for J-Will's injury? Is someone actually contesting my statement that its a factor to be considered? That losing the #2 pick for nothing hinders rebuilding? Please answer. 

He wasn't the team's best player. And since he's gotten "healthy" he's continued to suck and so has every team he's played on. 



> In the Bulls' 30 win season, they started 4-14. At the time Pax traded Rose/Marshall and fired Cartwright, the Bulls were 4-14.


Yeah, I know. That team sucked both seasons. Thats kind of my point.



> (Before people quibble with my assessment of Rose, he did put up 23/5/5 sort of numbers, was the only player on our roster mentioned as a possible all-star, and yes we had Artest and Miller but they weren't as good as Rose when they were Bulls).


I'm glad you liked him. I didn't.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He wasn't the team's best player. And since he's gotten "healthy" he's continued to suck and so has every team he's played on.


Last season:
Jalen Rose
33 minutes/game
18.5 PPG
45% FG
39.4% 3Pt
3.4 Reb
2.6 Ast
0.8 Stl
(Played SG)

Our best players the last 3 seasons:
Last year: Curry 16.1 PPG/6 RPG... Hinrich 15.7 PPG/6.4 APG (39 MPG) on 39% FG and 36% 3Pt
Previous year: Crawford 17.3 PPG/5 APG 39% FG and 32% 3PT, Hinrich 12 PPG/6.8 APG (36 MPG) on 39% FG and 39% 3Pt 

We sucked WORSE than when we had Rose after trading him (1st season) and Toronto won 10 more games than us WITH Rose.

(The same thing could be said for Crawford - Bulls won 23 with him, Knicks won 33 with him 1st season)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Last season:
> Jalen Rose
> 33 minutes/game
> 18.5 PPG
> ...


I'm not sure what your point is, but the Bulls 03-04 winning percentage went up after Rose was traded and replaced by Ronald Dupree/Linton Johnson. Evidently Toronto didn't think a whole lot of him either considering they gave up a first round draft pick just to get rid of him and his contract. 

Plus, those stats are hollow. Defense counts. Jalen doesn't play it. The day he was traded was, up to that point, arguably my happiest day as a Bulls fan since 1998.

Like I said, its cool that you thought he was good. I didn't. I couldn't wait for Paxson to blow up that team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not sure what your point is, but the Bulls 03-04 winning percentage went up after Rose was traded and replaced by Ronald Dupree/Linton Johnson. Evidently Toronto didn't think a whole lot of him either considering they gave up a first round draft pick just to get rid of him and his contract.
> 
> Plus, those stats are hollow. Defense counts. Jalen doesn't play it. The day he was traded was, up to that point, arguably my happiest day as a Bulls fan since 1998.
> 
> Like I said, its cool that you thought he was good. I didn't. I couldn't wait for Paxson to blow up that team.


I get that you didn't like our best player, which is fine. Pax has traded our best player each of the past 3 seasons - that's his MO (look out Gordon!).

In the meantime, the stats don't lie, or back up a claim that he's sucked since recovering from his injury.

Rose's primary problems have been from playing on teams (Bulls, then Toronto) that were committed to playing and developing younger players.

As for the Bulls' record improving... it also improved the year before when Cartwright benched Curry and started playing Fizer, and it's bound to improve when your best player is hampered by a pretty serious injury and you replace him with AD and JYD - filling two holes in the lineup - and you have a pretty good scorer in Crawford to take his place. Even so, the Bulls still finished 7 wins WORSE with those guys you seem to like (Linton et al) without Rose.

BTW, when they played Fizer, the Bulls had their 2nd best stretch of basketball since the dynasty over a half season.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I get that you didn't like our best player, which is fine. Pax has traded our best player each of the past 3 seasons - that's his MO (look out Gordon!).



Why would Gordon need to look out? He's not our best player.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Excuse Paxson for J-Will's injury? Is someone actually contesting my statement that its a factor to be considered? That losing the #2 pick for nothing hinders rebuilding? Please answer.


Nope. A couple points:

First, in Pax's eyes, at least, the Bulls weren't rebuilding anyway even after the loss of Williams. He went out that summer and signed up Pippen and Kendall Gill in moves that really didn't make much sense except to add experience and toughness to a team he felt was on the rise.

Second, it's been pretty widely argued that Jay was in breach of his contract by riding the motorcycle. And, given that Jay rode the bike to the Berto Center (and even gave a TV interview in which he was - in a bitter irony - heard to say "I'm not supposed to have it."). It would seem to me that riding a forbidden bike to work, talking about it at work, and giving a TV intereview about it would constitute sufficient notice to your employer (and thus your boss, John Paxson) that you were breaching your contract.

In short, I think it's likely Pax knew, or should have know Jay was riding the bike and failed to put a stop to it (as was the Bulls' right to do). Obviously that doesn't make it "Paxson's fault" Jay wrecked is bike. But it does suggest to me that he shouldn't get to use it as an excuse.

That kind of corporate safety issue is often ignored, but the reality is that it shouldn't be, and companies in the real world pretty often get penalized when their employees do something stupid.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I get that you didn't like our best player, which is fine. Pax has traded our best player each of the past 3 seasons - that's his MO (look out Gordon!).


If you mean leading scorer, I get you. Crawford or Curry were not our best players the year they were traded. Granted, there could be an argument for either of them so I don't think it's 100% off base to claim that.

Rose was our best player, but it was so painfully obvious that he was not a #1 option. It was almost as painful as when Ron Mercer was averaging the most FGA per game in 00-01 and part of 01-02.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I get that you didn't like our best player, which is fine. Pax has traded our best player each of the past 3 seasons - that's his MO (look out Gordon!).


 :laugh: 

Yeah, I keep forgetting that there are some out there who think scoring is the definitive statistic for being good. It harkens me back a couple of weeks to when someone asked you to explain why you thought Darious Songaila was "one of the worst players in the NBA" - you provided a link to the scoring list and said "he's way down the list". 

When I evaluate a player for quality, I consider the entirety of his game.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Nope. A couple points:


Come on, Mike. Losing the #2 pick in the draft for nothing doesn't hinder rebuilding? Give me a break.



> First, in Pax's eyes, at least, the Bulls weren't rebuilding anyway even after the loss of Williams. He went out that summer and signed up Pippen and Kendall Gill in moves that really didn't make much sense except to add experience and toughness to a team he felt was on the rise.


I'm not debating that. He was wrong. But when he realized he was wrong, having Jay Williams, as opposed to losing him for nothing, would have been a good asset to have in rebuilding the team. I don't really see how it can be logically argued otherwise.



> Second, it's been pretty widely argued that Jay was in breach of his contract by riding the motorcycle. And, given that Jay rode the bike to the Berto Center (and even gave a TV interview in which he was - in a bitter irony - heard to say "I'm not supposed to have it."). It would seem to me that riding a forbidden bike to work, talking about it at work, and giving a TV intereview about it would constitute sufficient notice to your employer (and thus your boss, John Paxson) that you were breaching your contract.
> 
> In short, I think it's likely Pax knew, or should have know Jay was riding the bike and failed to put a stop to it (as was the Bulls' right to do). Obviously that doesn't make it "Paxson's fault" Jay wrecked is bike. But it does suggest to me that he shouldn't get to use it as an excuse.


Christ. Its not an "excuse". Its a fact. Its a fact that has to be considered in evaluating the speed of the rebuilding process. 

And how do you "put a stop to it" if the player is simply refusing to comply? Kick him off the team? Void his contract? Instantly trade him for riding a motorcycle? Don't you think its possible that Jay saying "I'm not supposed to have it" is an indication that the team was already on him about it and that he was just ignoring them?

I can't believe I'm actually arguing this.



> That kind of corporate safety issue is often ignored, but the reality is that it shouldn't be, and companies in the real world pretty often get penalized when their employees do something stupid.


Sure. And the Bulls did get penalized. They lost him for nothing.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I get that you didn't like our best player, which is fine. Pax has traded our best player each of the past 3 seasons - that's his MO (look out Gordon!).


How's having all those 25+ point scorers working out for the Knicks? Scoring is only a partial requirement for an NBA player.

Hinrich and Deng are better players than Gordon, Curry, Crawford, and Rose.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Second, it's been pretty widely argued that Jay was in breach of his contract by riding the motorcycle. And, given that Jay rode the bike to the Berto Center (and even gave a TV interview in which he was - in a bitter irony - heard to say "I'm not supposed to have it."). It would seem to me that riding a forbidden bike to work, talking about it at work, and giving a TV intereview about it would constitute sufficient notice to your employer (and thus your boss, John Paxson) that you were breaching your contract.


I'll try and dig up an article, but I was almost positive that Jay crashed his bike within days after purchasing it.

Players get arrested for DUI, drug charges, and domestic violence, all of which I'm pretty sure breach a player's contract as well. I'd chalk Jay's motorcycle accident with some of these--something stupid a person does that only sometimes ends up in a horrific outcome.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Come on, Mike. Losing the #2 pick in the draft for nothing doesn't hinder rebuilding? Give me a break.
> 
> I'm not debating that. He was wrong. But when he realized he was wrong, having Jay Williams, as opposed to losing him for nothing, would have been a good asset to have in rebuilding the team. I don't really see how it can be logically argued otherwise.


Well, I say we should just give New York their pick back. It won't help us get better.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

For being the second youngest team in the NBA (1st Hawks, 3rd Blazers) and competing with a team in the middle of the pack age-wise for the 8th spot in the playoffs is mighty impressive. Of the ten youngest teams in the NBA, only the Bulls, Bucks, and Lakers are currently in playoff position. The Youngest and Oldest Teams in the NBA 

For a team in its third (2.75th since Skiles) year of the second rebuilding Pax has done a much better job than many GMs. It took Joe Dumars four years until the Pistons won a championship. How many GMs have had to deal with a motorcycle accident and a heart condition to their top talent? With what little Paxson had to work with, he drafted three guys who made First Team All-Rookie and signed another rookie who is fast becoming Manu SF-edition. 

In hindsight, Paxson could've had Dwyane Wade, and Curry's heart problem wasn't as bad as it was thought to be. However, this offseason is finally Paxson's opportunity to have offseason flexibility, but, boom or bust, I doubt Paxson is on any short leash. Krause was GM for two more seasons after his "big opportunity" offseason in 2000 (Fizer, Crawford, Tarlac, Voskuhl, El-Amin, and Mercer). I still think Offseason 2007 will be the big year for Paxson. If he uses the draft picks on drafting, those picks are still only getting paid rookie contracts, the team's core is one year further along, and cap space could still be large in 2007, where there's a chance to land a high-impact free agent or possibly draft Greg Oden.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> For being the second youngest team in the NBA (1st Hawks, 3rd Blazers) and competing with a team in the middle of the pack age-wise for the 8th spot in the playoffs is mighty impressive. Of the ten youngest teams in the NBA, only the Bulls, Bucks, and Lakers are currently in playoff position. The Youngest and Oldest Teams in the NBA
> 
> For a team in its third (2.75th since Skiles) year of the second rebuilding Pax has done a much better job than many GMs. It took Joe Dumars four years until the Pistons won a championship. How many GMs have had to deal with a motorcycle accident and a heart condition to their top talent? With what little Paxson had to work with, he drafted three guys who made First Team All-Rookie and signed another rookie who is fast becoming Manu SF-edition.
> 
> In hindsight, Paxson could've had Dwyane Wade, and Curry's heart problem wasn't as bad as it was thought to be. However, this offseason is finally Paxson's opportunity to have offseason flexibility, but, boom or bust, I doubt Paxson is on any short leash. Krause was GM for two more seasons after his "big opportunity" offseason in 2000 (Fizer, Crawford, Tarlac, Voskuhl, El-Amin, and Mercer). I still think Offseason 2007 will be the big year for Paxson. If he uses the draft picks on drafting, those picks are still only getting paid rookie contracts, the team's core is one year further along, and cap space could still be large in 2007, where there's a chance to land a high-impact free agent or possibly draft Greg Oden.


There is no cap space in 2007.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Christ. Its not an "excuse". Its a fact. Its a fact that has to be considered in evaluating the speed of the rebuilding process.


Sure, but it's also a fact that the player was in breach of his contract before he had the accident, and that the Bulls failed to put a stop to it. And that's a perfectly fair point to evaluate.



> And how do you "put a stop to it" if the player is simply refusing to comply? Kick him off the team? Void his contract? Instantly trade him for riding a motorcycle? Don't you think its possible that Jay saying "I'm not supposed to have it" is an indication that the team was already on him about it and that he was just ignoring them?


I don't see any evidence they did try, given the extensive coverage of the issue. The "I'm not supposed to have it" line likely simply means Jay knew the terms of his contract. The Bulls had all manner of tools short of the extreme ones you suggest, as I'm sure you know. The most obvious would be imposing fines, withholding pay, or barring him from team facilities until he was no longer breaching his contract. Those are all steps that could have been taken without resorting to the extreme measures you cite.

The implication of your statement is that the Bulls were somehow powerless to do anything. That's simply not true. They had the law, the CBA, and Williams' specific contract on their side. In short, they had lots of tools at their disposal. 

Now, it's true that one can walk into pretty much any place of business in America and see a safety-related clause of an employment contract being broken and/or a safety regulation being violated. And lots of folks take the same approach as you seem to be taking here and throw up their hands and say it's just too hard to do anything about it. Maybe, but a rule's a rule, and not doing anything to stop it or failing to stop it... especially after you've been made aware it's going on, is typically bad news when something does go wrong.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> There is no cap space in 2007.


Chant it...

M... L... E...
M... L... E...
M... L... E...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Sure, but it's also a fact that the player was in breach of his contract before he had the accident, and that the Bulls failed to put a stop to it. And that's a perfectly fair point to evaluate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They should have held him in breach and terminated the contract? I'm not sure what remedy you're wishing they'd exercised.

It's also speculation, either way, to say that Jay's comment meant he knew his contract or that it meant the team had told him not to ride the bike. Either one seems equally plausible.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, I say we should just give New York their pick back. It won't help us get better.


That sums it up perfectly. I thought it was a pretty obvious thing, but I guess not.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I'll try and dig up an article, but I was almost positive that Jay crashed his bike within days after purchasing it.
> 
> Players get arrested for DUI, drug charges, and domestic violence, all of which I'm pretty sure breach a player's contract as well. I'd chalk Jay's motorcycle accident with some of these--something stupid a person does that only sometimes ends up in a horrific outcome.


I think you're right. But he still had it at work in the days before it happened, and that would seem to be enough to put the Bulls on notice about it.

Look, I'm not saying it's the Bulls' fault Jay got hurt, but once you know someone is breaking a contract- and you should know if your employee shows up at work and goes on TV talking about it- then you should be doing something about it. If you know about a problem and you fail to correct it, then it should at least considered when your performance is evaluated in light of the minor problem blowing up into a horrific accident.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> They should have held him in breach and terminated the contract? I'm not sure what remedy you're wishing they'd exercised.


err... did you read where I wrote:


> The Bulls had all manner of tools short of the extreme ones you suggest, as I'm sure you know. The most obvious would be imposing fines, withholding pay, or barring him from team facilities until he was no longer breaching his contract. Those are all steps that could have been taken without resorting to the extreme measures you cite.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I don't see any evidence they did try, given the extensive coverage of the issue.


The point is, Mike, you don't have any evidence of anything one way or another.

But that doesn't stop you from drawing the unflattering inference, does it?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I think you're right. But he still had it at work in the days before it happened, and that would seem to be enough to put the Bulls on notice about it.
> 
> Look, I'm not saying it's the Bulls' fault Jay got hurt, but once you know someone is breaking a contract- and you should know if your employee shows up at work and goes on TV talking about it- then you should be doing something about it. If you know about a problem and you fail to correct it, then it should at least considered when your performance is evaluated in light of the minor problem blowing up into a horrific accident.


He didn't show up "at work" with it. He showed up in the parking lot outside the Berto center with it, during the offseason, on a day that MTV - and not the Bulls - were using the Berto. *And that show wasn't aired until months after the accident.* Unless, of course, you want to infer that MTV's camera crew called up John Paxson and tattled.

You cannot meaningfully impute knowledge to Bulls brass based on that isolated incident. 

And even if you could, you don't have the first clue what they were or weren't doing about it and what Jay did or did not promise them he was doing about it.

But why should that matter?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

The manipulation from some posters is amazing.....

I really doubt you guys have ever palyed basketball in an organized level....

I have some old teammates reading your posts here at my house.....

"You are ignorant"

Basketball is way more than stats....

You should be supporting the Knicks....... (you know who you are!!!)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, I say we should just give New York their pick back. It won't help us get better.


Let's see... 

So far Pax has traded away or cut two #4 picks - Curry and Fizer (Marshall was also a #4 pick, but not ours)

He's also traded away a #8 pick (Crawford)

He cut another 1st round pick (Bagaric #24)

He's cut or traded at least five 2nd round picks (Lonny Baxter, Mario Austin, Matt Bonner, Tommy Smith, and Trent Hassell)

Do tell exactly what we have remaining to show for all that?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Let's see...
> 
> So far Pax has traded away or cut two #4 picks - Curry and Fizer (Marshall was also a #4 pick, but not ours)
> 
> ...


Aside from Curry and Crawford who are mediocre...who else has value on that team???

Heck, I blocked Lonny Baxter last year (and I'm 6'3) in a friendly game against Panathinaikos.....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> Aside from Curry and Crawford who are mediocre...who else has value on that team???
> 
> Heck, I blocked Lonny Baxter last year (and I'm 6'3) in a friendly game against Panathinaikos.....


If all this is true, it speaks to the value of draft picks, no?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

have we sunk so low as to be thinking it's pax's fault jay williams went all evil kneivel on his own ***? 


that's crazy talk!

oh and pax traded the leading scorers two years in a row, not the best players on the team. huge and enormous difference. not that it matters. 





but go on with your bad selves. maybe you all are just overcompensating for short-comings in other areas. ahem.

i'm out of this thread.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> There is no cap space in 2007.


With the team we have now and with the current contracts, the total payroll for the 2007-2008 season (including player options) is about $31 million. If you include the two possible rookie contracts for the 2006 draft the total payroll is about $36-37 million. Figure that the salary cap will be around $49-52 million, there would still be quite a bit of cap space. LINK

Oops, the $31 million figure is actually for the 2006-2007 season. The 2007-2008 season payroll (with player and team options) would be $29.6 million.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> maybe you all are just overcompensating for short-comings in other areas.


Ok, who told her about my shortcomings!??


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

yeesh. I've heard this record before!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The point is, Mike, you don't have any evidence of anything one way or another.


No, the facts are pretty clear that:
* Jay had been using the bike in a way that should have been observed by the Bulls. 
* The Bulls had many tools at their disposal to compel him to stop.
* The Bulls did not compel him to stop.
* In the vast amount written about the events since, I saw nothing to suggest they took any steps to compel him to stop.



> But that doesn't stop you from drawing the unflattering inference, does it?


LOL, this coming from someone who entered the discussion as a self-professed propagandist. :biggrin:

Yeah, I knew you meant that remark toungue-in-cheek, though I'm growing less sure when you resort to attacking people's motives when you've run out of substance.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> With the team we have now and with the current contracts, the total payroll for the 2007-2008 season (including player options) is about $31 million. If you include the two possible rookie contracts for the 2006 draft the total payroll is about $36-37 million. Figure that the salary cap will be around $49-52 million, there would still be quite a bit of cap space. LINK
> 
> Oops, the $31 million figure is actually for the 2006-2007 season. The 2007-2008 season payroll (with player and team options) would be $29.6 million.


We've been through the calculations before.

I think you aren't considering re-signing our various core players, among other things.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> No, the facts are pretty clear that:
> * Jay had been using the bike in a way that should have been observed by the Bulls.
> * The Bulls had many tools at their disposal to compel him to stop.
> * The Bulls did not compel him to stop.
> * In the vast amount written about the events since, I saw nothing to suggest they took any steps to compel him to stop.


You also didn't see anything to suggest that they didn't take steps to compel him to stop. You are drawing the negative inference when it is just as easy to draw the positive one. That does, in fact, suggest motive.

I'm not taking a position either way on it. I'm saying we don't know. 



> LOL, this coming from someone who entered the discussion as a self-professed propagandist. :biggrin:
> 
> Yeah, I knew you meant that remark toungue-in-cheek, though I'm growing less sure when you resort to attacking people's motives when you've run out of substance.


The next post I wrote has a little more substance about the circumstances of the MTV show.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

In reading through this thread, I've concluded that no matter what Paxson does during the off-season he will be second-guessed.

It's pretty obvious he's made some mistakes. The mistakes that bug me the most are : 
-- not resigning Hassel, Hoiberg and Griffen when they were available at a reasonable price.
-- signing Pippen for two years instead of one.
-- being on the wrong side of the DNA test argument (just trade the guy if you don't want him!)
-- not finding a way to convince Tim Thomas to pretend to be team player for a year.

But these complaints are outweighed by many good decisions :
-- Having the guts to fire a friend who had the misfortune to be coaching a team with several poison-pill players on it.
-- Hiring the right coach to replace him. A guy who was in the NBA doghouse at the time.
-- Drafting well. All of his 1st round pics have turned out to be starting quality players. One out of three for second round pics is a very good score as well. The trade for Deng was outstanding.
-- Trading Rose and Marshall for AD & JYD. This trade will pay its final dividends in the form of cap space this summer.
-- Signing Nocioni for less than the MLE for three years
-- Signing Songalia and Allen for peanuts
-- Getting a reasonable return on Curry from New York when it looked like we might get nothing.
-- Holding to a philosophy of getting and retaining team players who have good work habits, and a never-say-die desire to win. And letting those go who don't fit that philosophy.

If I were Reinsdorf, I would love the guy. The stadium is full, ticket prices are going up, he runs one of the cheapest operations in the NBA, and he's got the fans talking enthusiastically about next year. The team has been mostly losing in recent years, but current profits are very good and prospects for the future are better. What's not to like?

But second guessing is part of the fun of being a fan, so I would be disappointed if everyone thought that every move Paxson and Skiles make is a good one.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Let's see...
> 
> So far Pax has traded away or cut two #4 picks - Curry and Fizer (Marshall was also a #4 pick, but not ours)
> 
> ...


Yup, Krause had some bad draft picks, that's for sure. 

Although Paxson's picks have played well. That's why having a high pick is a very good thing, becauase Pax can draft good players.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If all this is true, it speaks to the value of draft picks, no?


Depends who's using them, no?


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We've been through the calculations before.
> 
> I think you aren't considering re-signing our various core players, among other things.


2007-2008
Tyson Chandler: 10,223,102
Ben Gordon: 4,881,669 (Team option)
Chris Duhon: 3,247,284
Kirk Hinrich: 4,281,314 (Qualifying offer)
Luol Deng: 3,320,339 (Team option)
Mike Sweetney: 3,654,375 (Qualifying offer)
TOTAL: 29,608,083

Arguably the only core player missing is Nocioni, who will be a unrestricted free agent in 2007. One may figure that the Bulls may not pick up Sweets for the 2007-2008 season, so if the Bulls re-sign Noc the core payroll should be around $30 million.

Of course, I'm not taking into account other possible signings such as rookie contracts or free agent pickups, because they haven't happened yet.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Sam's Q and A is up and a question I asked (I'll admit it) all about Pax and his contract and how long he'll get from Reinsdorf is up (plus one about trading the leading scorers someone else asked). 

The question and answer:



> *It's almost the third anniversary of Paxson's hiring as GM. How would you rate him now? Do you think he'll be able to make the Bulls one of the top teams or will they be stuck in the lower tiers? How long will Reinsdorf give him? And what's his salary? I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned. --KJ, Madison, Wis.*
> 
> Sort of like his career: Better things to come. *I believe he can have the job as long as he wants it, but friends of his tell me he takes the games and deals hard and they wonder if he will want to get away and live a normal life before he's asked. * Overall, he's done a very good job. The Bulls are regarded as a serious team again, which they weren't when he took over. Perhaps what he seeks is not possible, but he is the NBA version of a '50s moralist. He wants his team to represent values of hard work, effort and professionalism. The question is whether you can achieve that without the occasional talented goofball. Thus far it hasn't made much difference to fire Eddie Robinson and Tim Thomas, and I doubt that will hurt them in the free-agent market as money transcends any personal feelings or loyalty in pro sports. *Paxson also is ultra competitive, as much so as Michael Jordan ever was, but it's talked about less. I think he's done very well in the draft and has a good eye for talent*. Some didn't have Kirk Hinrich as high as he picked him and he was on Dwyane Wade early and would have taken him third in that draft if he had a pick that high. Luol Deng was a nice pick at No. 7, Chris Duhon was a good second-rounder and Andres Nocioni was a steal as a free agent. Though Paxson's overall free-agent record is spotty since the Bulls haven't been a big player before. They can be this summer and this will probably define his career. The Bulls have cap space, high draft picks, though it's not a great draft, and flexibility. This summer should be the foundation for what the Bulls will be and probably establish Paxson's legacy. As for his salary, I'm not sure what it is. But I know it's way less than Skiles', just as mine is way less than just about everyone who is on TV and radio. Paxson and I, though, retain our dignity even if we don't drive expensive cars.


Longer answer than what he sent me back.

The shorter answer he sent back was it's his job as long as he wants.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I still haven't found the exact timeline, but I found this interesting regarding Jay's accident and how it affected their offseason plans.

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0622/1571476.html



> The uncertain future of point guard Jay Williams will alter the Chicago Bulls' strategy for Thursday's NBA draft.
> 
> The Bulls have the No. 7 pick and were considering the possibility of packaging that selection with either Williams or the team's only other experienced point guard, Jamal Crawford, in order to land a veteran small forward, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.





> "We're in a different position than we were a couple of days ago, in a lot of respects," Bulls general manager John Paxson told the Sun-Times. "We have to move on in terms of making a decision this week, but it's going to be a different decision based on the roster now and based on thinking ahead. It changes a little bit."


Needless to say, we ended up with Captain Kirk.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> In reading through this thread, I've concluded that no matter what Paxson does during the off-season he will be second-guessed.
> 
> It's pretty obvious he's made some mistakes. The mistakes that bug me the most are :
> -- not resigning Hassel, Hoiberg and Griffen when they were available at a reasonable price.
> ...


Nice post, although I never wanted a part of Tim Thomas unless he wanted to play PF, a role he has complained about in the past. I would have preferred had he deemed the Curry trade necessary to find some way to hold onto AD. We didn't "need" to trade AD for TT to make salaries work.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> With the team that Paxson inherited, alll he had was the MLE, Max Player Jalen and 2 bigmen that didn't know how to keep their shorts on, let alone know how to play the game. This is the 1st season Paxson has payroll flexiblility. The 1st season that Paxson doesn't have a Krause "max worthy" player. Instead of just an allowance, Pax finally has the wallet.
> 
> Andres hasn't done what Marshall has done? I liked Marshall when he was on the Bulls but this year Noch is by far the better player. I have always thought Marshall was too laid back and never got the most out of his talent. The only thing Marshall did better than Andres was shoot, this year from 3, Donyell is 31%, Andres 39%. so even shooting the 3 is a something that Andres does better.


the MLE is all most teams have in addition to their players , the bulls won 30 games with what he was left , 

he then had , his players who were for most part still improving.

the MLE, and LLE
the #7 pick in the draft and whatever # mario austin was (36?) was plus a couple of other picks i believe became matt bonner and tommie smith.

i dont see why they would be worse , kirk was a better rookie than jay and easily compensated for him and the rest of the team was improved just due to being one year older.

and the moment pax traded donyell he went to avg. 16 and 11 for the raps in his remaining 66 games while shooting 47% FG and 40% from 3, i dont know if noce would have that kind of impact on any team in the nba. and also seeing as none of the players the bulls recieved in that deal are even in the nba i have to think pax didn't get enough value for marshall and rose no matter many posters here think of them. and i agree , 

i dont see why people feel the need to harp on pax's cap space like thats all that mattered ...if that is all that mattered he could have rid himself of rose's deal that 1st offseason for an ending deal(it doesn't take 3 years to get rid of a max deal, or at least it shouldn't), he could have had max level space last offseason if he didn't panic and trade for jyd and AD, he could have actively dumped deals left and right . there is no one really worth it this offseason that is takeable , (ben wallace is going no where....pryz is not going to make or break the bulls he is good and will fill a need but chances are this is who the bulls will get i dont think that is nearly enough.) to me that says bad planning and he has to make a deal and hope another team wants to do it, it takes 2 to tango.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> 2007-2008
> Tyson Chandler: 10,223,102
> Ben Gordon: 4,881,669 (Team option)
> Chris Duhon: 3,247,284
> ...


Kirk will already have played out his QO by then. You still have to fill out our roster, and account for about $6M in salaries for our draft picks (ours plus knicks'). RIght there you're off by about $12M.



Again, SausageKingofChicago has already posted the numbers and shown how it's use the cap space this summer or lose it entirely.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> No, the facts are pretty clear that:
> * Jay had been using the bike in a way that should have been observed by the Bulls.
> * The Bulls had many tools at their disposal to compel him to stop.
> * The Bulls did not compel him to stop.
> * In the vast amount written about the events since, I saw nothing to suggest they took any steps to compel him to stop.


Wow. Ted Kennedy himself couldn't do a better job of deflecting blame from the individual and grafting it onto an organization.   This is like blaming the New Orleans Hornets for Chris Anderson's drug problems. If you agree with that one (and I'm not suggesting you would) we are not going to see eye to eye on this point at all.

I suppose the Bulls could have found a way to get Jay off a bike. The way I understand it, however, that contract rule is a standard clause that really is there to give the organization an out if there is a motorcycle accident. Otherwise, it seems to be widely ignored. Phil Jackson used to go riding with Dennis Rodman. I've seen Shaq with a bike. I know I've seen other players with bikes, on MTV Cribs and such, but more names escape me at the moment. Another example would be players playing hoops in the offseason. I think most players don't have a "love of the game" clause in their contract and aren't supposed to be playing pick up ball. I bet a lot of them do it anyway, and it is not for the teams to follow them around and kick their butts if they do play. But if the player gets hurt in an unauthorized pickup game he may be SOL.

No, Jay is a big boy, and it wasn't the Bulls' responsibility to babysit him, or even to remind him that he wasn't allowed by contract to ride a bike.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He didn't show up "at work" with it. He showed up in the parking lot outside the Berto center with it, during the offseason, on a day that MTV - and not the Bulls - were using the Berto. *And that show wasn't aired until months after the accident.* Unless, of course, you want to infer that MTV's camera crew called up John Paxson and tattled.
> 
> You cannot meaningfully impute knowledge to Bulls brass based on that isolated incident.
> 
> ...


Of course it matters, I just don't agree with your interpretation of things, which is slanted to give the Bulls the absolute most coverage and protection possible.

The Bulls own Berto. They certainly know who is on site and what is going on there. If they don't, they should. It's not like they evacuated the place so MTV could shoot an interview with Jay Williams. It's also clear the Bulls use - and encourage - the use of the Berto Center by their employees in the summer time. You're right, obviously it's not like the Bulls could see the TV show before it aired. However, I find it extremely unlikely they let TV crews on the premesis without knowing what they're up to. And I know the Bulls keep track of who's coming and working out. Obviously John Paxson or Jerry Reinsdorf himself isn't sitting there checking people as they pull into the lot, but the Bulls have employees there, and usually guys chatting about their new bikes and riding them to work aren't exactly tight lipped about them.

One can only make suppositions based on what is known. And it is known that, Jay was on the Bulls premesis giving interviews and its known that, despite hundreds of articles written and presumably thousands of hours exploring the subject by people who make their living doing so, nothing was written that suggested the Bulls had done anything. In short, there were people who quite probably tried to uncover such evidence. In light of that fact, the inability to find any makes it more likely there was none to find and less likely they all just happened to miss it. It's possible, but I find it more likely than not that the Bulls knew and... like most folks about the many "every day dangers" people see, didn't do anything. 

Look, I don't think this is such a huge deal. I'm not saying it's all Paxson's fault or anything. But if you're going to say the Bulls are to be evaluated given the fact of Williams' accident, then it's perfectly fair to consider the possibility that if the Bulls had taken what appeared to be an insignificant problem seriously, the whole mess might have been avoided.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Wow. Ted Kennedy himself couldn't do a better job of deflecting blame from the individual and grafting it onto an organization.   This is like blaming the New Orleans Hornets for Chris Anderson's drug problems. If you agree with that one (and I'm not suggesting you would) we are not going to see eye to eye on this point at all.
> 
> I suppose the Bulls could have found a way to get Jay off a bike. The way I understand it, however, that contract rule is a standard clause that really is there to give the organization an out if there is a motorcycle accident. Otherwise, it seems to be widely ignored. Phil Jackson used to go riding with Dennis Rodman. I've seen Shaq with a bike. I know I've seen other players with bikes, on MTV Cribs and such, but more names escape me at the moment. Another example would be players playing hoops in the offseason. I think most players don't have a "love of the game" clause in their contract and aren't supposed to be playing pick up ball. I bet a lot of them do it anyway, and it is not for the teams to follow them around and kick their butts if they do play. But if the player gets hurt in an unauthorized pickup game he may be SOL.
> 
> No, Jay is a big boy, and it wasn't the Bulls' responsibility to babysit him, or even to remind him that he wasn't allowed by contract to ride a bike.


i agree with you jay was at fault a huge chunk of it goes straight to him, however the bulls maintain a small bit of the blame from the standpoint of protecting their investment , just as the dynasty bulls once stopped scottie pippen from playing in his own charity game , it is done and jay was basically flaunting that he wasn't obeying the rules of his contract since he came to the berto center with it.

at the very least i would hope they would mention it to him.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Kirk will already have played out his QO by then. You still have to fill out our roster, and account for about $6M in salaries for our draft picks (ours plus knicks'). Right there you're off by about $12M.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, SausageKingofChicago has already posted the numbers and shown how it's use the cap space this summer or lose it entirely.


In 2007-2008 four players (Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Chandler), who are very much part of the core will be making a cap salary of about $22 million combined; these are currently the only four players, barring a trade, who will be playing for the Bulls in 2007-2008. Include the two 2006 draft picks, should they be used, then that salary goes to about $28 million. That means about $22 million in cap space can be used to re-sign Hinrich, sign a big free agent, fill the roster, whatever. This is not taking into account the filling of the roster in the 2006 offseason. Of course this year can be a big year for Pax, but if he does virtually nothing this offseason you can see how much cap space is available in 2007. I haven't looked at SausageKinfofChicago's posts about the numbers; I'm basing all that I'm saying in this post on the link I posted earlier.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> the MLE is all most teams have in addition to their players , the bulls won 30 games with what he was left ,
> 
> he then had , his players who were for most part still improving.
> 
> ...


No question that giving up Marshall in the Rose trade was a loss. But in the end it was probably worth it just to get rid of Rose. Remember Rose and Crawford basically conspired to get Cartwright fired. Rose was a cancer that infected Crawford and needed to be removed before bringing in a new coach. Marshall was the price. As it was, AD was a nice pick-up who help get us into the playoffs last year. That would not have happended with Rose on the team.

In regard to cap space, its important to remember that a professional basketball team only needs 7-9 high quality players. In my opinion the Bulls currently have six young quality players. They need two more (of the large variety). Hopefully one of the draft choices will make that seven. It's only necessary to add one more quality player through the free agent market. 

Of course if you trade one of the current six core players to sign a RFA or other player, then you will need to add yet another player. Paxson has indicated that that is precisely what he intends to do.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Of course it matters, I just don't agree with your interpretation of things, which is slanted to give the Bulls the absolute most coverage and protection possible.


I don't have an interpretation. I wrote what the circumstances were. Was it inaccurate? I didn't "slant" anything. I'm trying to clarify the slant through an objective look at the circumstances.



> The Bulls own Berto. They certainly know who is on site and what is going on there. If they don't, they should.


Is this 1984? The Bulls, because they own the building, know what every person who drives onto the lot, is driving, during the offseason?



> It's not like they evacuated the place so MTV could shoot an interview with Jay Williams.


Oh. Who from the Bulls was there?



> It's also clear the Bulls use - and encourage - the use of the Berto Center by their employees in the summer time.


Which includes giving them electronic pass cards to get in so they can access the facility when no one else is there.



> You're right, obviously it's not like the Bulls could see the TV show before it aired. However, I find it extremely unlikely they let TV crews on the premesis without knowing what they're up to. And I know the Bulls keep track of who's coming and working out. Obviously John Paxson or Jerry Reinsdorf himself isn't sitting there checking people as they pull into the lot, but the Bulls have employees there, and usually guys chatting about their new bikes and riding them to work aren't exactly tight lipped about them.


That doesn't mean "security guy" (usually an independent contractor from a separate company) or whoever else may be in the parking lot says anything about it to anyone, or that they would even know its improper to be on the bike on the first place.



> One can only make suppositions based on what is known. And it is known that, Jay was on the Bulls premesis giving interviews and its known that, despite hundreds of articles written and presumably thousands of hours exploring the subject by people who make their living doing so, nothing was written that suggested the Bulls had done anything. In short, there were people who quite probably tried to uncover such evidence. In light of that fact, the inability to find any makes it more likely there was none to find and less likely they all just happened to miss it. It's possible, but I find it more likely than not that the Bulls knew and... like most folks about the many "every day dangers" people see, didn't do anything.


Like I said, drawing the most negative inference available. Thats fine. 



> Look, I don't think this is such a huge deal. I'm not saying it's all Paxson's fault or anything. But if you're going to say the Bulls are to be evaluated given the fact of Williams' accident, then it's perfectly fair to consider the possibility that if the Bulls had taken what appeared to be an insignificant problem seriously, the whole mess might have been avoided.


Throw it out of the equation then, since evidently its arguably the Bulls fault, through ommission, that it happened.

I won't throw it out, though. It matters.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> No question that giving up Marshall in the Rose trade was a loss. But in the end it was probably worth it just to get rid of Rose. Remember Rose and Crawford basically conspired to get Cartwright fired. Rose was a cancer that infected Crawford and needed to be removed before bringing in a new coach. Marshall was the price. As it was, AD was a nice pick-up who help get us into the playoffs last year. That would not have happended with Rose on the team.


How do you know any of this? Sounds like you made it up... sorry.

In any case, the only blight on either player's record is that ONE TIME, Cartwright benched them and they complained that they felt they were being made the scapegoats for the team's performance (while others revise history to make it something else, no doubt). I'm a fan of Cartwright as our coach, but I think he didn't handle that situation well at all. At least Skiles would have said "we need to shake things up" well ahead of time - probably a lesson learned from this very incident.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Wow. Ted Kennedy himself couldn't do a better job of deflecting blame from the individual and grafting it onto an organization.   This is like blaming the New Orleans Hornets for Chris Anderson's drug problems. If you agree with that one (and I'm not suggesting you would) we are not going to see eye to eye on this point at all.


If it appears I'm shifting blame, I think you're misunderstanding, since I've said... I think three times already... that I don't think the Bulls are to blame for Jay's accident. That'd be silly like Ted Kennedy silly.

Let's draw a parallel. Maybe the proverbial "everyone gets drunk, woman is flirting, and then gets raped example"? Is the woman to blame for being raped? Absolutely not. Should she be punished for dressing any way she pleases. Absolutely not. Should the rapist be punished to the fullest extent possible. Absolutely. Did the woman exercise good judgement in her behavior? Absolutely not.



> I suppose the Bulls could have found a way to get Jay off a bike. The way I understand it, however, that contract rule is a standard clause that really is there to give the organization an out if there is a motorcycle accident. Otherwise, it seems to be widely ignored. Phil Jackson used to go riding with Dennis Rodman. I've seen Shaq with a bike. I know I've seen other players with bikes, on MTV Cribs and such, but more names escape me at the moment. Another example would be players playing hoops in the offseason. I think most players don't have a "love of the game" clause in their contract and aren't supposed to be playing pick up ball. I bet a lot of them do it anyway, and it is not for the teams to follow them around and kick their butts if they do play. But if the player gets hurt in an unauthorized pickup game he may be SOL.
> 
> No, Jay is a big boy, and it wasn't the Bulls' responsibility to babysit him, or even to remind him that he wasn't allowed by contract to ride a bike.


It wasn't their *responsibility*, I agree. But it was in their *interest*. That's a fundamental and important difference. Like you point out, it's not the Bulls responsibility to baby sit guys they're paying millions of dollars to. However, unfortunately, as this example shows, it's clearly in a team's interest to do so in many cases.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Is that MikeDC?

http://www.bongonews.com/layout3.php?event=2258&topic=outsourcing

*Liberals Defend Al Qaeda’s Right to Privacy*

WASHINGTON, DC — Nancy Pelosi defended terrorists’ right to privacy last week. 

“I have ordered my staff to stop screening packages sent to me that might contain bombs, because that is like eavesdropping. We should not be eavesdropping on phone calls and emails by Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the U.S.,” she said a few seconds before she was blown to shreds in her office at the Capitol. 

“I voted for the Iraq war because I was deceived, not because I am stupid or gutless,” she had said moments earlier, but now she was gutless and, now that she is dead, perhaps we can agree that she was stupid. 

Senator Ted Kennedy was not impressed by a report that eavesdropping authorized by President Bush uncovered a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, that the plotter was convicted by a U.S. court and sent to jail, and that the court saw no constitutional problem or illegality in the eavesdropping. 

“The judge was probably a conservative,” said Kennedy. “It is wrong to eavesdrop, wronger than blowing up bridges. I will defend to the death the right to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Not with my life. But with the lives of others, such as the people crossing the bridge.” 

_ Emma Dubin_


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Is that MikeDC?


Yes, he's right next to Ted Kennedy, in the orange.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Throw it out of the equation then, since evidently its arguably the Bulls fault, through ommission and blatant speculation, that it happened.
> 
> I won't throw it out, though. It matters.


Paxson may not have even known about the NBA motorcycle rules at the time. Even if he did it's not really his job to actively interfere with what his players choose to do with their free time, as long as they meet their obligations to the team.

I'm afraid the accident falls into the unfortunate "stuff happens" category. Young men (even old men) do risky things and pay the consequences. I was recently reminded of the time Luc Longley jeprodized a championship run by breaking a bone body surfing when I dislocated my shoulder and damn near broke my neck doing the same thing in Hawaii last month. 

NBA rules aside, young athletic men will find ways to hurt themselves off the job. Sometimes by body-surfing or motorcycle riding and others by taking dietary supplements that affect cardiac function. The primary responsibility of management is to educate their employees about the risks involved in different behaviors and to deal with injuries properly when they occur so that the long term health of the player and the team are affected as little as possible. It's probably not reasonable to expect that monitoring a players passtime could or should be a major part of a GM's job.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Blaming Pax for Jwills accident is foolish. And I think his post handling of it, in the immediate term, was very good. But in the intermediate term, saying things like no way is he ever going to play again and never for the Bulls was D-U-M-B. It appears that Pax clearly doesnt have a medical degree cause it does appear Jwill will play again and we just shut out a chance to grab him. 

I often wonder if people would love John Paxson so much if he didnt play for the Bulls, hadnt hit that shot in Phoenix, or LA, hadnt been part of the "family". The question I ask is I wonder what Paxs approval ratings would be had he played his entire career for San Antonio. Would the lovers give him such a free reign? It just seems that every knucklehead thing he does is just so forgiven. But had he not played for the Bulls, I think he would have a sub George Bush approval rating. 

Food for thought


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> How do you know any of this? Sounds like you made it up... sorry.
> 
> In any case, the only blight on either player's record is that ONE TIME, Cartwright benched them and they complained that they felt they were being made the scapegoats for the team's performance (while others revise history to make it something else, no doubt). I'm a fan of Cartwright as our coach, but I think he didn't handle that situation well at all. At least Skiles would have said "we need to shake things up" well ahead of time - probably a lesson learned from this very incident.


The incident you mention is the one I had in mind. When players refuse to play for a coach or follow his plan, they are making a statement about his leadership and essentially asking for his removal (or their own). As I recall, there were also statements made to the press that were damning as well. Marbury is currently doing that in New York. At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Blaming Pax for Jwills accident is foolish. And I think his post handling of it, in the immediate term, was very good. But in the intermediate term, saying things like no way is he ever going to play again and never for the Bulls was D-U-M-B. It appears that Pax clearly doesnt have a medical degree cause it does appear Jwill will play again and we just shut out a chance to grab him.
> 
> I often wonder if people would love John Paxson so much if he didnt play for the Bulls, hadnt hit that shot in Phoenix, or LA, hadnt been part of the "family". The question I ask is I wonder what Paxs approval ratings would be had he played his entire career for San Antonio. Would the lovers give him such a free reign? It just seems that every knucklehead thing he does is just so forgiven. But had he not played for the Bulls, I think he would have a sub George Bush approval rating.
> 
> Food for thought


I agree 100% with the first bit. The thing is that people give Pax a pass because of the act of god that was JWill's injury, but refuse to recognize a similar thing (injury) occured to Rose at the start of the season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Blaming Pax for Jwills accident is foolish. And I think his post handling of it, in the immediate term, was very good. But in the intermediate term, saying things like no way is he ever going to play again and never for the Bulls was D-U-M-B. It appears that Pax clearly doesnt have a medical degree cause it does appear Jwill will play again and we just shut out a chance to grab him.
> 
> I often wonder if people would love John Paxson so much if he didnt play for the Bulls, hadnt hit that shot in Phoenix, or LA, hadnt been part of the "family". The question I ask is I wonder what Paxs approval ratings would be had he played his entire career for San Antonio. Would the lovers give him such a free reign? It just seems that every knucklehead thing he does is just so forgiven. But had he not played for the Bulls, I think he would have a sub George Bush approval rating.
> 
> Food for thought


I don't think anyone gives a crap about what he did as a player when looking at him as a GM. Maybe if Jordan was the GM or something. And even then, you'd have to be a pretty simple minded fanboy to let on court performances over a decage ago impact your opinion of the moves the man makes as a GM.

I know plenty of Celtics fans that think Ainge stinks as a GM. And he was a far more significant player than Paxson ever was.

Personally, Paxson has the same basic image for building a team, and how the game is "supposed" to be played to win, that I have. Thats why I like him. His moves are typically consistent with my opinions. It has nothing to do with who he is as a person or what he did as a player.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Blaming Pax for Jwills accident is foolish. And I think his post handling of it, in the immediate term, was very good. But in the intermediate term, saying things like no way is he ever going to play again and never for the Bulls was D-U-M-B. It appears that Pax clearly doesnt have a medical degree cause it does appear Jwill will play again and we just shut out a chance to grab him.
> 
> I often wonder if people would love John Paxson so much if he didnt play for the Bulls, hadnt hit that shot in Phoenix, or LA, hadnt been part of the "family". The question I ask is I wonder what Paxs approval ratings would be had he played his entire career for San Antonio. Would the lovers give him such a free reign? It just seems that every knucklehead thing he does is just so forgiven. But had he not played for the Bulls, I think he would have a sub George Bush approval rating.
> 
> Food for thought


I'd trade Pax straight up for San Antonio's general manager.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The incident you mention is the one I had in mind. When players refuse to play for a coach or follow his plan, they are making a statement about his leadership and essentially asking for his removal (or their own). As I recall, there were also statements made to the press that were damning as well. Marbury is currently doing that in New York. At least that's the way I see it.


http://www.hoopsvibe.com/report-jalen-rose-may-be-traded-to-raptors-ar4747.html



> Rose was reportedly ticked off earlier this season by being labeled as a scapegoat for early season losses. Rose was pulled out of the starting lineup of a November 8 game against New Orleans. Rose had started in 323 straight games until that point and said he was angry about being benched by head coach Bill Cartwright.


In that New Orleans game mentioned, Rose scored 34 points on 10-15 FG, 10-12 FT, 5 Rreb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk

http://www.basketball-reference.com/games/boxscore.cgi?date=2003-11-08&tm1=CHI&tm2=NOH

EDIT:
http://stats.onlineathens.com/basketball/pro/nba/2003/recap/277426.shtml

"I was disappointed to come off the bench," Rose admitted. "Being a professional, that's the nature of the business. It's unfortunate that people have to be the scapegoat when the team isn't playing well." 

With Bulls coach Bill Cartwright shaking up his lineup, Crawford also came off the bench for 14 points to spoil Floyd's first game against his former team. 

"Our team's got to play at an emotional level," Cartwright said. "You can't wait for something to happen. You've got to get involved, and that's what I thought happened." 

"To take two guys out, I would definitely say we're the scapegoats," Crawford said. "Was it disrespectful to single us out? Yeah."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I agree 100% with the first bit. The thing is that people give Pax a pass because of the act of god that was JWill's injury, but refuse to recognize a similar thing (injury) occured to Rose at the start of the season.


Sore wrist = severe bone and nerve damage to the hip compelling multiple surgeries.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> I often wonder if people would love John Paxson so much if he didnt play for the Bulls, hadnt hit that shot in Phoenix, or LA, hadnt been part of the "family". The question I ask is I wonder what Paxs approval ratings would be had he played his entire career for San Antonio. Would the lovers give him such a free reign? It just seems that every knucklehead thing he does is just so forgiven. But had he not played for the Bulls, I think he would have a sub George Bush approval rating.
> 
> Food for thought


I disagree...it surely doesn't hurt him that he's "part of the family" and it may help him at the margins, but it definitely isn't the reason he isn't overwhelmingly disliked. He took a crappy team and made it better quickly and has restored some of the franchise's pride in doing so. He's made some mistakes, but the good easily outweighs the bad to many of us, and he has this summer to really put his stamp on things in a big way.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think anyone gives a crap about what he did as a player when looking at him as a GM. Maybe if Jordan was the GM or something. And even then, you'd have to be a pretty simple minded fanboy to let on court performances over a decage ago impact your opinion of the moves the man makes as a GM.
> 
> I know plenty of Celtics fans that think Ainge stinks as a GM. And he was a far more significant player than Paxson ever was.
> 
> Personally, Paxson has the same basic image for building a team, and how the game is "supposed" to be played to win, that I have. Thats why I like him. His moves are typically consistent with my opinions. It has nothing to do with who he is as a person or what he did as a player.


I seriously doubt it. No offense to you, but I just do. Lots of the lovers, and you among them, complement him for anything he does. But there have been as many ****-ups as there have been successes. The haters are in the same boat. The haters hate him because he was given the job. He didnt even really interview for it. It wasnt earned. But they dont give him a fair shot either. But the lovers can not acknowledge serious screw ups and bigger then life comments by this GM. His crying on the radio about Curry or seeing fit to try and argue with a guy on the radio is so childish. If you dont see that, then your clearly dazed by those shots in LA and Phoenix. Because if it were Cotton Fitzsimmons (may he RIP) or someone else not associated with the Bulls family, EVERYONE, and I MEAN EVERYONE, would have his hide for some of the things he has pulled, from not interviewing any coaching candidates, to dictating DNA terms (which were illegal), to calling it on Jwills career to crying every chance he got about how Curry screwed him, not one person would back up a non Bulls family person in that GM spot. Not one person


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I disagree...it surely doesn't hurt him that he's "part of the family" and it may help him at the margins, but it definitely isn't the reason he isn't overwhelmingly disliked. He took a crappy team and made it better quickly and has restored some of the franchise's pride in doing so. He's made some mistakes, but the good easily outweighs the bad to many of us, and he has this summer to really put his stamp on things in a big way.


Again I doubt it. It clearly helps him. Maybe the good outweighs the bad, but we went from 30 wins to 37 wins in 3 years? Is this good? Is it clearly better then without Pax. I have no beef with the Pax lovers, or haters, but to not judge a man on his actions, but rather for reasons of nepotism is just stupid. He has done some very good things (the Gordon/Deng/Duhon Draft, signing Noc) and needs to be acknowledged for it. But he has done some very dumb things. The haters cant acknowledge the good, the lovers however, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, can acknowledge the bad. I personally dont like that he was given the job without even interviewing someone else. And it was a prime job that people were interested in. It was nepotism. And in a lot of ways, on a personal level, not really basketball Xs and Os, he has acted like he is above all of that. He isnt. He is an average GM in the NBA. Not bad, but not good. He took a team that was terrible and made it 7 wins better in 3 years. The real trick is taking a 44 win team and making it into a 55 win team and keeping it there. Those are the good GMs.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I'd trade Pax straight up for San Antonio's general manager.



San Antonios GM was interested in the Bulls job when it was open. But RC Buford didnt get an interview. Only one guy did. How does that make you feel? Now, can you see why Dabullz, K4E and others have Pax on a short leash? I can understand why they feel that way.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Sore wrist = severe bone and nerve damage to the hip compelling multiple surgeries.


Rose's injury was severe enough that he required surgery later with the Raptors. Yet he played with it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> Again I doubt it. It clearly helps him. Maybe the good outweighs the bad, but we went from 30 wins to 37 wins in 3 years? Is this good? Is it clearly better then without Pax. I have no beef with the Pax lovers, or haters, but to not judge a man on his actions, but rather for reasons of nepotism is just stupid. He has done some very good things (the Gordon/Deng/Duhon Draft, signing Noc) and needs to be acknowledged for it. But he has done some very dumb things. *The haters cant acknowledge the good, the lovers however, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, can acknowledge the bad*. I personally dont like that he was given the job without even interviewing someone else. And it was a prime job that people were interested in. It was nepotism. And in a lot of ways, on a personal level, not really basketball Xs and Os, he has acted like he is above all of that. He isnt. He is an average GM in the NBA. Not bad, but not good. He took a team that was terrible and made it 7 wins better in 3 years. The real trick is taking a 44 win team and making it into a 55 win team and keeping it there. Those are the good GMs.



ok, i'm back.


this isn't really true or is it fair. and this issue isn't as polar as some people really want to make it.

take mcbulls' excellent post in this thread where he gives the good and the bad, yet he still remains a pax supporter. under what circumstance again?

i wrote a thing that was PUBLISHED IN THE TRIBUNE that called Pax out on the fact he did nothing to replace the size lost upfront in the eddy/AD trade. and yet i remain a firm supporter of pax.

i think you are very realistic about the good and the bad too. of course some people just miss eddy and jamal and jalen so much it clouds their perspective, imo. that's their problem. good riddance i say.




i'm hoping that the team makes great strides this off-season. pax will certainly be under the microscope - and that's life in the big leagues. as long as he is the GM he will be second guessed, that's the nature of the beast. he can be questioned and supported at the same time without the questioner being labeled a _lover_ or a _hater_. such petty labels anyway.

so while he may not have to hit a home run, grand slam or otherwise to improve the team this summer - i do think he at least needs to get the team a whole lot to closer to second base. third base is contending in the EC and home plate is the whole enchilada.

i love baseball metaphors. mix them in with mexican food names and WE HAVE A WINNER!


:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> ok, i'm back.
> 
> 
> this isn't really true or is it fair. and this issue isn't as polar as some people really want to make it.
> ...



Mize, your even headed. Thats what I like about you. I would never classify you as a lover or hater. Your above the camps. But about 70% of the board are clearly in camps. And they DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE GOOD OR BAD ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE. The lovers can not point to Paxs real bad points and acknowledge that he was real dumb. The haters can not acknowledge Paxs drafting recrod. I think thats fairly obvious. About 30% of the board has stayed above the fray. Good posters like tb, johnston and yourself. Kudos to you. I would just like to see some of the people who punish or praise Pax, like liberals or bible belters right wing nut jobs come to the center and judge the man for what he basically is, an average GM until proven otherwise who has made some good things happen and has done some, equally IMO, dumb things.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I seriously doubt it.


Right. Because who'd be in a better position to know what *I* think than *you*. 



> No offense to you, but I just do. Lots of the lovers, and you among them, complement him for anything he does.


Not to split hairs here, but I only complement him if I agree with something he does. Your overgeneralization detracts from your credibility. There have been several things Paxson has done that I disagreed with. Hassell in particular.

I also was very vocal in criticizing him this summer with the Chandler situation, stating that if he didn't get that deal locked up, even at an overpayment, that I'd be irrate. Fortunately (or perhaps not) he got that deal done. My point is that we can largely be supportive of him, without being these mindless, drooling drones that you describe. 



> But there have been as many ****-ups as there have been successes.


No there haven't. But there have been some.



> But the lovers can not acknowledge serious screw ups and bigger then life comments by this GM.


That just isn't a true statement.



> His crying on the radio about Curry or seeing fit to try and argue with a guy on the radio is so childish. *If you dont see that*, then your clearly dazed by those shots in LA and Phoenix.


Do I not see that? I don't agree with that overly emotional and public reaction. I didn't really mind Paxson being a little defensive at first, but he went overboard. I think the general consensus around here was that he needed to just zip it and move on.



> Because if it were Cotton Fitzsimmons (may he RIP) or someone else not associated with the Bulls family, EVERYONE, and I MEAN EVERYONE, would have his hide for some of the things he has pulled, from not interviewing any coaching candidates, to dictating DNA terms (which were illegal), to calling it on Jwills career to crying every chance he got about how Curry screwed him, not one person would back up a non Bulls family person in that GM spot. Not one person.


No.

(a) He picked the right coach. The process is meaningless to me. 

(b) To this day, I have no problem with how he handled the DNA situation. If we are going to psychoanalyze things, this probably has more to do with the fact that I didn't care for Eddy Curry as a basketball player, though, than anything else. It certainly had nothing to do with Paxson. And it wasn't illegal. It was subject to legal challenge. But there remains great uncertainty in the law as to what employers may or may not do with regard to DNA. 

(c) J-Will has a career? He did announce the McDonald's All American game and slam dunk contest. But I don't think Paxson had any say in that one way or another.

Not one person? I'm one person.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> the lovers however, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, can acknowledge the bad.


I don't know if you're counting me in the group or not, but I have no problem acknowledging that he's made mistakes. Cutting Blount a day late, being over his head in the Curry DNA thing and sounding foolish many times, cutting Hassell (a move I applauded at the time, but was also wrong about), being too open with the media at various points, losing his cool in the locker room his first full season, doing nothing to replace the AD/Curry loss besides bringing in Songaila...

I think the polarization isn't so much a product of people only acknowledging one side of the story (though that's certainly true at times), but a *stark difference in opinion *about whether certain moves were to the team's benefit or detriment. Moves such as:
Rose/Marshall for AD/JYD
Crawford to NYK for role players
Curry to NYK for picks and Sweetney.

The more pro-Pax people see the first two moves as being necessary to creating a new environment. The anti-Pax people focus on the fact that we "lost on talent" in those trades. Both have a point (and we all know where I stand). The Curry trade is a little more ambiguous. I didn't want to see him go and thought the whole thing was handled badly, but I'm willing to wait until the picks happen to make a final judgment. Plus, we gave up AD, who was valuable to us in spite of his deteriorating game.

At the end of the day, Pax created a 47-win team in a real hurry, and though I'm disappointed that we didn't build on that success this year, I see how many options we have at our disposal and think that despite that disappointment, we have a chance to be really good really soon. So, for me, the good outweighs the bad. That doesn't mean I think Pax is infallible or anything, though.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Right. Because who'd be in a better position to know what *I* think than *you*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet you criticize people like K4E for basically agreeing with some of the things you didnt like that Pax did. Thats right, your not clouded at all!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't know if you're counting me in the group or not, but I have no problem acknowledging that he's made mistakes. Cutting Blount a day late, being over his head in the Curry DNA thing and sounding foolish many times, cutting Hassell (a move I applauded at the time, but was also wrong about), being too open with the media at various points, losing his cool in the locker room his first full season, doing nothing to replace the AD/Curry loss besides bringing in Songaila...
> 
> I think the polarization isn't so much a product of people only acknowledging one side of the story (though that's certainly true at times), but a *stark difference in opinion *about whether certain moves were to the team's benefit or detriment. Moves such as:
> Rose/Marshall for AD/JYD
> ...



Good post Flog


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't know if you're counting me in the group or not, but I have no problem acknowledging that he's made mistakes. Cutting Blount a day late, being over his head in the Curry DNA thing and sounding foolish many times, cutting Hassell (a move I applauded at the time, but was also wrong about), being too open with the media at various points, losing his cool in the locker room his first full season, doing nothing to replace the AD/Curry loss besides bringing in Songaila...
> 
> I think the polarization isn't so much a product of people only acknowledging one side of the story (though that's certainly true at times), but a *stark difference in opinion *about whether certain moves were to the team's benefit or detriment. Moves such as:
> Rose/Marshall for AD/JYD
> ...


Building a 47 win team is fine and dandy. Building one that is sustainable is the key.

Clippers
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="92%"><tbody><tr class="bold"><td>Year</td><td>Lg</td><td align="center">W-L</td><td>Regular Season</td><td>Playoffs</td></tr> <tr><td>2005</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">37-45</td><td>3rd, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2004</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">28-54</td><td>7th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2003</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">27-55</td><td>7th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2002</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">39-43</td><td>5th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2001</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">31-51</td><td>6th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2000</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">15-67</td><td>7th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>1999</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">9-41</td><td>7th, Pacific Division</td></tr></tbody></table>
Warriors
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="92%"><tbody><tr class="bold"><td>Year</td><td>Lg</td><td align="center">W-L</td><td>Regular Season</td><td>Playoffs</td></tr> <tr><td>2005</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">34-48</td><td>4th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2004</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">37-45</td><td>4th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2003</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">38-44</td><td>6th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2002</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">21-61</td><td>7th, Pacific Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2001</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">17-65</td><td>7th, Pacific Division</td></tr></tbody></table>
Raptors
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="92%"><tbody><tr class="bold"><td>Year</td><td>Lg</td><td align="center">W-L</td><td>Regular Season</td><td>Playoffs</td></tr> <tr><td>2005</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">33-49</td><td>4th, Atlantic Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2004</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">33-49</td><td>6th, Central Division </td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>2003</td><td>NBA</td><td align="center">24-58</td><td>7th, Central Division</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> *And yet you criticize people like K4E for basically agreeing with some of the things you didnt like that Pax did.* Thats right, your not clouded at all!!!!!!!!!!


Such as what?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Building a 47 win team is fine and dandy. Building one that is sustainable is the key.


I agree. Like I said, I'm disappointed in this year and Pax carries his share of blame for leaving our frontcourt empty. However, I think he's in a good position to build a sustainable winning team - several pieces are in place and we have ways to add a few more. We'll see how he does. If he stays as conservative as the critics here say he is, we could be in trouble. But I think he'll take a swing or two for the fences.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> No question that giving up Marshall in the Rose trade was a loss. But in the end it was probably worth it just to get rid of Rose. *Remember Rose and Crawford basically conspired to get Cartwright fired. Rose was a cancer that infected Crawford and needed to be removed before bringing in a new coach. * Marshall was the price. As it was, AD was a nice pick-up who help get us into the playoffs last year. That would not have happended with Rose on the team.
> 
> In regard to cap space, its important to remember that a professional basketball team only needs 7-9 high quality players. In my opinion the Bulls currently have six young quality players. They need two more (of the large variety). Hopefully one of the draft choices will make that seven. It's only necessary to add one more quality player through the free agent market.
> 
> Of course if you trade one of the current six core players to sign a RFA or other player, then you will need to add yet another player. Paxson has indicated that that is precisely what he intends to do.


the bolded is something i need to hear backed up in some way because it just seems ridiculous to me.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> the bolded is something i need to hear backed up in some way because it just seems ridiculous to me.


As I recall, Rose and Crawford were primary ballhanders and scorers for the team at the time. Cartwright was attempting to get them to play the triangle on offense. Both players were uncooperative, and were benched in a desperate attempt to regain control of the team. The fact that they scored a lot in the same game doesn't change the fact that the relationship between them and their coach had become antagonistic. The social dynamic put Paxson in a position where he had to make major changes in personnel or coaching or both. Apparently he thought so, since all concerned were sent on their way in less than a year. The changes were expensive. Cartwright had more years on his contract; and Rose and Crawford were essentially traded for players who were ostensibly of less value. 
This is my interpretation of events as a fan who read the news accounts at the time. Undoubtedly there are others who have a better, more accurate perspective of this bit of Bulls history. But what cannot be denied is that Cartwright, Rose and Crawford were summarily removed from the team after these events at considerable cost to the franchise.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> As I recall, Rose and Crawford were primary ballhanders and scorers for the team at the time. Cartwright was attempting to get them to play the triangle on offense. Both players were uncooperative, and were benched in a desperate attempt to regain control of the team. The fact that they scored a lot in the same game doesn't change the fact that the relationship between them and their coach had become antagonistic. The social dynamic put Paxson in a position where he had to make major changes in personnel or coaching or both. Apparently he thought so, since all concerned were sent on their way in less than a year. The changes were expensive. Cartwright had more years on his contract; and Rose and Crawford were essentially traded for players who were ostensibly of less value.
> This is my interpretation of events as a fan who read the news accounts at the time. Undoubtedly there are others who have a better, more accurate perspective of this bit of Bulls history. But what cannot be denied is that Cartwright, Rose and Crawford were summarily removed from the team after these events at considerable cost to the franchise.


By this reasoning, Antonio Davis' relationship with Skiles had become antagonistic and put Paxson in a position where he had to make major changes in personnel or coaching or both. He was summarily removed from the team at considerable cost to the franchise.

It's also hard to figure out why Paxson, according to your theory, would see to it that Crawford was moved to SG and became the team's featured player (and leading scorer).

I do think you're right that Paxson has historically removed players from the team for players of ostensibly less value.

I might also point out that aside from Chandler, I don't know of a Bulls player who makes $4M or more. Gordon is the 2nd highest paid player at $3.6M.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

McBulls said:


> As I recall, Rose and Crawford were primary ballhanders and scorers for the team at the time. Cartwright was attempting to get them to play the triangle on offense. Both players were uncooperative, and were benched in a desperate attempt to regain control of the team. The fact that they scored a lot in the same game doesn't change the fact that the relationship between them and their coach had become antagonistic. The social dynamic put Paxson in a position where he had to make major changes in personnel or coaching or both. Apparently he thought so, since all concerned were sent on their way in less than a year. The changes were expensive. Cartwright had more years on his contract; and Rose and Crawford were essentially traded for players who were ostensibly of less value.
> This is my interpretation of events as a fan who read the news accounts at the time. Undoubtedly there are others who have a better, more accurate perspective of this bit of Bulls history. But what cannot be denied is that Cartwright, Rose and Crawford were summarily removed from the team after these events at considerable cost to the franchise.


If I remember correctly 

kirk was out sick to start the season 

rose was playing with basically a broken hand and missed practically all of training camp 

prized fa pippen barely played in the preason and we were seeing signs he wouldnt be able to go everynight.

Curry started the season playing like do-do and had a bad hammy that caused him to miss most of camp 

tyson was ailing with his back 

there was no revolt 

the team had struggled to start the season but had just lost a close game to Philly and Cartwright decided to take Rose and Crawford out of the starting lineup but he didnt inform them until gametime.In the post game before they had spoken to Cartwright about it the media was all over it. 

I personally think the addition of pippen disrupted any chemistry we had built up from the previous year as he seemed like some type of agent for pax who was brought into take Jalens place as leader of the team but we all know thats not how basketball works . 

But alas Pax said he made the Jalen move to allow Crawford time at sg and BC and Rose were gone long before he was.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> If I remember correctly
> 
> kirk was out sick to start the season
> 
> ...


You remember correctly, or at least as I remember it. I'd add that it looked to me like the Rose move was made so there'd be no choice but to play Kirk about 39 minutes a game. Our guard rotation became Kirk, Crawford, Pargo, and Pike.

One other difference is that the Bulls started the season 4-6 in the first 10 games in spite of all that. And the rumors about Cartwright getting fired didn't inspire the team to play well in the following games. The Bulls lost 9 in a row during that time, and Cartwright was fired after 4 of those (while the rumors were printed daily in the paper the whole time), and Pete Myers was interim coach for 5 of the losses.

Cartwright was fired Nov. 24:


14 2002-11-23 CHI @UTA L 90-110 4-10 Lost 4 (Cartwright fired after this game)
15 2002-11-27 CHI @BOS L 82-92 4-11 Lost 5
16 2002-11-30 CHI @DAL L 90-103 4-12 Lost 6
17 2002-12-03 CHI NOH L 90-115 4-13 Lost 7
18 2002-12-04 CHI @CLE L 101-111 4-14 Lost 8
19 2002-12-06 CHI @TOR L 89-103 4-15 Lost 9
20 2002-12-07 CHI CLE W 112-104 5-15 Won 1 (Skiles' first game)

Bulls record the rest of the way under Skiles was 19-44 .301, 7-7 in the last 14 games, games that Ron Cey has said are meaningless.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> As I recall, Rose and Crawford were primary ballhanders and scorers for the team at the time. Cartwright was attempting to get them to play the triangle on offense. Both players were uncooperative, and were benched in a desperate attempt to regain control of the team. The fact that they scored a lot in the same game doesn't change the fact that the relationship between them and their coach had become antagonistic. The social dynamic put Paxson in a position where he had to make major changes in personnel or coaching or both. Apparently he thought so, since all concerned were sent on their way in less than a year. The changes were expensive. Cartwright had more years on his contract; and Rose and Crawford were essentially traded for players who were ostensibly of less value.
> This is my interpretation of events as a fan who read the news accounts at the time. Undoubtedly there are others who have a better, more accurate perspective of this bit of Bulls history. But what cannot be denied is that Cartwright, Rose and Crawford were summarily removed from the team after these events at considerable cost to the franchise.


thats crazy , cartwright benched them for one game , they had their say , JC said something like the writing is on the wall and then 2 weeks later pax is talking how he did the firing of cartwright and the trading of rose to see if JC could be the leader of the team from the 2 guard spot.

paxson to me panicked due to the poor start , he probably never believed in them in the 1st place as evidenced by how quickly and effortlessly he was able to hire skiles outside the org. he had this plan already set up long before he fired cartwright. he traded a hurt player and a player who at the time of the trade was rounding into form but for most of the month was playing poorly. it was released that pax was working on that trade for at least 2 weeks before it was made. he got pennies on the dollar for them. his offseason moves blew up in his face and quickly and did the trade to attempt to subdue attention to his own folly in his offseason additions as well as his missed marketing ploy of "No Excuses" making the season about something else , he was new to the job and still had time , he surely could not do that now.

rose despite what people like to believe is not a cancer he wasn't in indy tor. or ny and certainly wasn't in chicago and crawford has shown himself to be far more of the positive role model type than then the shot hungry anti-christ he is so often depicted around these parts by some at times.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Bulls record the rest of the way under Skiles was 19-44 .301, 7-7 in the last 14 games, games that Ron Cey has said are meaningless.


They were meaningless. That team sucked too. The difference is, that team was the rubble of deconstruction and provided the foundation on which to rebuild. The sucky team the year before was the rebuilt team. 

If a 30 win team, that went 7-7 in its last 14 games, with no capspace and a declining and aging maxed out player as its "best player" was a team "on the rise" to be cherished and nurtured, then you fellas must be absolutely giddy over the current team.

After all, its got 37 wins so far, its younger, it has multiple first round picks and maximum capspace, and its gone 8-2 in its last 10 games. Gosh, talk about a team on the rise. You guys must be stoked.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> If I remember correctly
> 
> kirk was out sick to start the season
> 
> ...


There was certainly bad chemistry on that team. And the players lack of respect for Cartwright was no small part of it. We've left out ERob, who was kept around until the trading deadline in the faint hope that someone would trade us something for him. 

There may have been some hope of saving Crawford, but in the next draft Paxson demonstrated that he had little interest in retaining him as a RFA. 

Within a year the team was house-cleaned of players who constantly found reasons not to practice, who complained about minutes or lack of touches, or who found defense less interesting than offense. These changes might have occured even if Cartwright had had a better working relationship with his team, but probably at a more measured pace.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> If a 30 win team, that went 7-7 in its last 14 games, with no capspace and a declining and aging maxed out player as its "best player" was a team "on the rise" to be cherished and nurtured, then you fellas must be absolutely giddy over the current team.
> 
> After all, its got 37 wins so far, its younger, it has multiple first round picks and maximum capspace, and its gone 8-2 in its last 10 games. Gosh, talk about a team on the rise. You guys must be stoked.



Amen, brother.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> They were meaningless. That team sucked too. The difference is, that team was the rubble of deconstruction and provided the foundation on which to rebuild. The sucky team the year before was the rebuilt team.
> 
> If a 30 win team, that went 7-7 in its last 14 games, with no capspace and a declining and aging maxed out player as its "best player" was a team "on the rise" to be cherished and nurtured, then you fellas must be absolutely giddy over the current team.
> 
> After all, its got 37 wins so far, its younger, it has multiple first round picks and maximum capspace, and its gone 8-2 in its last 10 games. Gosh, talk about a team on the rise. You guys must be stoked.


Gotcha.

If it's good for your case, the games are meaningless, otherwise they're huge.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> thats crazy , cartwright benched them for one game , they had their say , JC said something like the writing is on the wall and then 2 weeks later pax is talking how he did the firing of cartwright and the trading of rose to see if JC could be the leader of the team from the 2 guard spot.
> 
> paxson to me panicked due to the poor start , he probably never believed in them in the 1st place as evidenced by how quickly and effortlessly he was able to hire skiles outside the org. he had this plan already set up long before he fired cartwright. he traded a hurt player and a player who at the time of the trade was rounding into form but for most of the month was playing poorly. it was released that pax was working on that trade for at least 2 weeks before it was made. he got pennies on the dollar for them. his offseason moves blew up in his face and quickly and did the trade to attempt to subdue attention to his own folly in his offseason additions as well as his missed marketing ploy of "No Excuses" making the season about something else , he was new to the job and still had time , he surely could not do that now.
> 
> rose despite what people like to believe is not a cancer he wasn't in indy tor. or ny and certainly wasn't in chicago and crawford has shown himself to be far more of the positive role model type than then the shot hungry anti-christ he is so often depicted around these parts by some at times.


Rose and Crawford as Role models? Role models in how to play basketball without ever taking a charge, without going on top of a screen; how to look for your own shot first; how to complain and whine constantly, how to avoid boring practices... Kirk had a lot to learn from them.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> If it's good for your case, the games are meaningless, otherwise they're huge.




I don't know where you're getting that from Ron's post. I call foul.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> If it's good for your case, the games are meaningless, otherwise they're huge.


Its sarcasm, genius. 

I don't consider these last 10 games to be important beyond what they are - a short term playoff push. I'm applying the argument *you guys are making* regarding how the 2002-2003 team was "on the rise" to the facts and circumstances of the current team to illustrate the inconsistent application of the argument.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its sarcasm, genius.
> 
> I don't consider these last 10 games to be important beyond what they are - a short term playoff push. I'm applying the argument *you guys are making* regarding how the 2002-2003 team was "on the rise" to the facts and circumstances of the current team to illustrate the inconsistent application of the argument.


There's CLEARLY a lot of folks here who were sold on the 3Cs, including Pax himself. Pax promised playoffs, or how easily we forget these kinds of things when it's convenient.

On the rise doesn't mean the one season. Look at the record of the team over THREE consecutive seasons and the rise is evident.

15 -> 23 -> 30 wins

36 wins the following season was 8th seed.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

LOL at revisiting the Rose trade, that was the 1st move that Paxson made that reshaped the current Bulls team. All the Bulls were at that time were a bunch of potential and a horrible team to watch, captained by Jalen Rose, who just *****ed about how beneath him it was to not start for "his" team. 
If any move was the start of things to come it was this one. 

Jalen, since his days at Michigan has dazzled people w/ his basketball skills but hasn't won anything, anywhere despite talented team mates. Why is that, you suppose? I am kinda upset that Toronto traded him, there goes the automatic win there  I didn't like trading Marshall with him but it might of been necessary to get rid of Jalen. If you want a team of players that play hard and always come to play, you can't have Jalen Rose on the cover of the media guide.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

with the revisionist history going on in this thread i am surprised that 2002-2003 team on the rise didn't actually make it to the eastern conference finals!


hilarious.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Rose and Crawford as Role models? Role models in how to play basketball without ever taking a charge, without going on top of a screen; how to look for your own shot first; how to complain and whine constantly, how to avoid boring practices... Kirk had a lot to learn from them.


actually i was reffering to crawford as a role model, not rose although JC has said that rose was a role model for him.

both players play shooting guard ...or what used to be known as shooting forward in rose's case , they have the job as scorers they are supposed to look for their shot at times 1st .

i have seen both players take charges , at one time rose was known as a pretty good defender , and JC has been complemented recently for his defense.

i rarely see JC whine about calls 

and neither are guys known for missing practices , Rose has had the rep as an ironman .

from today's paper



> Rose has been bothered by tendinitis, but said yesterday that he would practice the rest of the season, even if he couldn't play.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/66954.htm

JC i believe has the record for most summer workout sessions (or is tied with hassell for the most)

crawford also has come back from major injury months early to play in what Ron Cey would call "meaningless games" I personally feel all games mean something.

if you think kirk is perfect and is superior in all facets to the point he could never learn anything from these 2, i suspect you are wrong.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> There's CLEARLY a lot of folks here who were sold on the 3Cs, including Pax himself. Pax promised playoffs, or how easily we forget these kinds of things when it's convenient.


No one is forgetting that. Pax overestimated that team just like everyone else did (except you). He was wrong. He recognized it quickly and changed direction. Ron Cey has pointed that out repeatedly.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Da Grinch,

I agree with you that Jamal is now starting to get it. It took 5 years for this to happen. At this pace in another 5 years Jamal could be an expirenced veteran


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Da Grinch,
> 
> I agree with you that Jamal is now starting to get it. It took 5 years for this to happen. At this pace in another 5 years Jamal could be an expirenced veteran


truthfully i dont think he ever didn't get it , i think he was like most young players that are non-euros he got his #s but learned as he got more secure in the league(meaning=got paid) he worked moreso to do other things better . I think Dan rosenbaum called it "glory stats" young players on rookie deals have to put up #s to make money , thats just the business, it would be different if the nba paid guys based on their contributions to winning , but they dont a guy like SAR has made much more $ in basketball then a guy like robert horry who has been over his career much more useful.

Krause known as the sleuth for his background checking loved the crawford , it was obvious the feeling was mutual. i dont see that happening if jamal just cared about his shot attempts.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> at one time rose was known as a pretty good defender



At a point other than when he played for the Bulls.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> actually i was reffering to crawford as a role model, not rose although JC has said that rose was a role model for him.
> 
> both players play shooting guard ...or what used to be known as shooting forward in rose's case , they have the job as scorers they are supposed to look for their shot at times 1st .
> 
> ...


Crawford is a much better player this year than he has been in the past. He's a bright spot on an otherwise ugly NY team. Perhaps Larry Brown has had some effect. Or maybe he has just matured. 

But when he was with the Bulls he was a terrible defensive player, and he had an unfortunate tendency to take ill-advised shots on offense. Jalen Rose was exactly the wrong role model for him at that time, and I suspect his development would have been faster without his example.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> No one is forgetting that. Pax overestimated that team just like everyone else did (except you). He was wrong. He recognized it quickly and changed direction. Ron Cey has pointed that out repeatedly.


Thanks. I thought I had made that painfully clear in my detailed posts in this thread, but evidently not. It was fools gold.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Crawford is a much better player this year than he has been in the past. He's a bright spot on an otherwise ugly NY team. Perhaps Larry Brown has had some effect. Or maybe he has just matured.
> 
> But when he was with the Bulls he was a terrible defensive player, and he had an unfortunate tendency to take ill-advised shots on offense. Jalen Rose was exactly the wrong role model for him at that time, and I suspect his development would have been faster without his example.


i dont think crawford was as bad a defender as people here like to make him out to be.

he wasn't great by any means, i would consider him a mediocre defender, nothing special .

according to 82games.com the bulls defended worse when JC wasn't on the court in both the 2002-03 season and the 2003-04.

http://www.82games.com/03CHI4D.HTM

http://www.82games.com/02CHI2D.HTM

also the position he mostly defended in each year pg in 2002-03 and sg in 2003-04 the opposing guard shot an efg% of 46% both years . to put that in perspective in JC shot an efg of 45% in 2003-04 and 47% in 2002-03.

dont let perception rule reality.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Crawford is a much better player this year than he has been in the past. He's a bright spot on an otherwise ugly NY team. Perhaps Larry Brown has had some effect. Or maybe he has just matured.
> 
> But when he was with the Bulls he was a terrible defensive player, and he had an unfortunate tendency to take ill-advised shots on offense. Jalen Rose was exactly the wrong role model for him at that time, and I suspect his development would have been faster without his example.


I see nothing bright about Crawford's performance this season. All this Crawford love-talk this season has only really come up since that recent little three game winning streak. His minutes, scoring, and assist numbers have been worse, and his shooting percentages and rebounding numbers have only been slightly higher, though it appears that his shot selection has slightly improved. If he's such a bright spot, then why is he averaging almost seven minutes less per game than last season? Just like the Bulls' 30-win season, Crawford decides to kick it into high gear near the end of a meaningless season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

And three years later... we're at 37 wins while all but maximizing the talent on hand. Whooopee. Great job. It was all worthwhile.

Don't worry though. Al Harrington very well may be on the way. Maybe.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And three years later... we're at 37 wins while all but maximizing the talent on hand. Whooopee. Great job. It was all worthwhile.


"It was all worthwile" would suggest that we've realized the return of past moves. As you know, we haven't. And won't, until we find out if we get an improved pick through the Knicks next year. 

Time will tell all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

There is no way to know how the 2003-2004 Bulls team would have done once Hinrich got healthy and experience, Curry got in shape, Rose's hand healed and if/when Chandler could come back and be effective.

The absolute worst time to make these kind of decisions is right after the Circus trip. We saw that last season.

What's done is done... its been a long time... we're in a slightly better place now W/L wise than the season before the blowup... but that last thing I wanted out of this perpetual rebuild is to get stuck at mediocre. Let's hope Paxson lands an impact player or two in the draft. The FAs all look very average... except for perhaps Gooden.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Time will tell all.


At some point, time has to run out.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> At some point, time has to run out.


True enough.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is no way to know how the 2003-2004 Bulls team would have done once Hinrich got healthy and experience, Curry got in shape, Rose's hand healed and if/when Chandler could come back and be effective.


I guess I have to give you this one. It's never possible to say for certain what would have happened to a team in any "what if" situation.

What we can say is that Rose's star has fallen since leaving Chicago. For his productivity, he's got an "albatross" contract. Curry, Crawford and Chandler have yet to achieve stardom in the league and the Bulls have played more successful basketball in the last 2 seasons than they did in any of the post-dynasty seasons.

In the end, it's all about wins and losses. This season has been a disappointment, but becoming less so as the season draws to a close. The '03-'04 team was not a contender and the '05-'06 isn't one either. This said, I like the quality of basketball I see in the current team MUCH more than I liked what I was seeing in '03-'04, but then again, competence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you truly believe that, in the overall, the moves Paxson has made since '03-'04 haven't made the Bulls a better team and positioned to become even better in the future, than we must agree to disagree. I genuinely feel bad you can't see it.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> I see nothing bright about Crawford's performance this season. All this Crawford love-talk this season has only really come up since that recent little three game winning streak. His minutes, scoring, and assist numbers have been worse, and his shooting percentages and rebounding numbers have only been slightly higher, though it appears that his shot selection has slightly improved. If he's such a bright spot, then why is he averaging almost seven minutes less per game than last season? Just like the Bulls' 30-win season, Crawford decides to kick it into high gear near the end of a meaningless season.


I've been watching NY a lot this season (for obvious reasons). The team as a whole has not been playing together well on either end of the floor. Larry Brown has to take a large share of the blame for that. 

Crawford has been asked to fill in at point guard and shooting guard and to play with several different backcourt partners. In general, he has done this very well. 

He's passing the ball better than he has in the past and has shown good floor generalship on occasion (which must be a bit like steering the Titanic straight after it hit the iceberg). 

He drives to the bucket more often, and is being rewarded with free throws. 

Most of all, he's playing good solid defense for the first time in his career. He actually manages to stay in front of his man most of the time and doesn't focus so much on playing the passing lanes. 

The constant shuffling in lineups and his roles are probably responsible for his erratic scoring. Lately with Marbury on the bench, he has shown he can lead in that department as well. 

He's quietly gone about his job without complaint in the midst of a cacaphony of complaining by his coach and teammates.

..................

All that said, I agree that he has a way to go before he realizes the potential that many hoped for. He still needs to spend more time in the gym building his strength. He could try a little harder to get rebounds. He could still improve a lot on defense. And he needs to play a set role for once in his career for an entire year. 

As far as regretting his departure goes, I guess it depends primarily on how well you think his replacement Ben Gordon is doing; and secondarily how important you think the 7-8M cap space made available this summer by his departure is worth. 

I wouldn't trade Ben for Jamal straight up, and I think the cap space might just come in handy.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I've been watching NY a lot this season (for obvious reasons). The team as a whole has not been playing together well on either end of the floor. Larry Brown has to take a large share of the blame for that.


Larry Brown has been a VERY SUCCESSFUL coach everywhere he's been except for the Knicks. EVERYWHERE! It's a mystery to me how he suddenly forgot how to coach basketball after all these years.



> Crawford has been asked to fill in at point guard and shooting guard and to play with several different backcourt partners. In general, he has done this very well.
> 
> He's passing the ball better than he has in the past and has shown good floor generalship on occasion (which must be a bit like steering the Titanic straight after it hit the iceberg).
> 
> He drives to the bucket more often, and is being rewarded with free throws.


Crawford is becoming a player. He needs to escape from NY to see if he can become a winning player. That team's a cesspool.



> Most of all, he's playing good solid defense for the first time in his career. He actually manages to stay in front of his man most of the time and doesn't focus so much on playing the passing lanes.


Sorry, but he's still a below average defender. Improved, but still below average. However, on the Knicks, he may be above average. If he WANTS TO fight through the screens and help off-ball, there's no question that he could become at least average as compared to other NBA guards.



> The constant shuffling in lineups and his roles are probably responsible for his erratic scoring. Lately with Marbury on the bench, he has shown he can lead in that department as well.
> 
> He's quietly gone about his job without complaint in the midst of a cacaphony of complaining by his coach and teammates.


Again, Crawford needs to get out of NYC. When healthy, Marbury and Francis are guards who mean to score and need the ball to do it. To be successful with the Knicks, he'd need to develop into a defensive-oriented big guard, and I don't think he's got that in him. With the right team, he could be a 20ppg scorer. He needs to find that team.

..................

All that said, I agree that he has a way to go before he realizes the potential that many hoped for. He still needs to spend more time in the gym building his strength. He could try a little harder to get rebounds. He could still improve a lot on defense. And he needs to play a set role for once in his career for an entire year. 

As far as regretting his departure goes, I guess it depends primarily on how well you think his replacement Ben Gordon is doing; and secondarily how important you think the 7-8M cap space made available this summer by his departure is worth. 

I wouldn't trade Ben for Jamal straight up, and I think the cap space might just come in handy.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Come on, Mike. Losing the #2 pick in the draft for nothing doesn't hinder rebuilding? Give me a break.


At the risk of starting some more controversy (god knows I hate that) I was thinking about this this morning, and as things actually turned out it's quite possible... perhaps probable... that losing Jay actually helped the eventual rebuilding.

If Jay hadn't been hurt, what would have happened? 

Jay was a pretty thorough disappointment his rookie year. Perhaps he would have turned around, but perhaps not.

With Jay and Jamal on the team, we most likely wouldn't have drafted Kirk.

I guess it's debateable, but it seems to me we got lucky in how things turned out. As it stands, I don't think I'd trade Kirk for Jay and Jarvis Hayes or Mikeal Pietrus (the guys we seemed to be most focusing on before the injury to Jay). 

Of course, there could have been trades too. I do remember speculation about the Bulls looking into acquiring Antoine Walker.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

With Jay and jamal on the team we would've traded Jay and the 7th pick for the 3rd pick and drafted Carmelo Anthony.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

laso said:


> With Jay and jamal on the team we would've traded Jay and the 7th pick for the 3rd pick and drafted Carmelo Anthony.


Or maybe Wade.


----------

