# Semi OT: Knicks sign Jefferies to offer sheet.



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/41700/20060728/knicks_sign_jeffries_to_offer_sheet/ 



> Washington Post - According to the Washington Post, league sources have confirmed that the New York Knicks have signed restricted free agent, Jared Jeffries, to an offer sheet this afternoon. Terms of the offer sheet were not immediately available, but the Knicks had their full Mid Level Exception still available meaning they could have offered Jeffries an offer sheet of up to 5 years for $30,247,000.


Honestly, not a bad move for the Knicks IMO. For the MLE, Jeffries was probably the best guy available, and he compliments the rest of the Knicks roster pretty well. For our sake, I hope Washington matches, and then Isiah undergoes a re-self actualization and throws the boat at someone like DeShawn Stevenson.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

You know what, I'd rather have Joakim Noah than Greg Oden anyway.

And heck, even if Jeffries does more than just a little bit, I'd be happy with Roy Hibbert.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> You know what, I'd rather have Joakim Noah than Greg Oden anyway.
> 
> And heck, even if Jeffries does more than just a little bit, I'd be happy with Roy Hibbert.


That's the spirit .


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Now they just need to make their guards into productive role model players then they will have a decent team.

Curry
Frye
Jeffries

Not a bad front court. Not sure who will rebound, other than that, they are ok. Find takers for Jamaal, Steve, and Steph, AND Jalen as well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Showtyme said:


> You know what, I'd rather have Joakim Noah than Greg Oden anyway.
> 
> And heck, even if Jeffries does more than just a little bit, I'd be happy with Roy Hibbert.


HUH?

You'd take a C/PF that shined really only in the tournament against a true 7 foot center with potential to be the next GREAT?

The only other player I'd be HAPPY with if we didn't get Oden is, Durant


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Washington says they plan to match any offer for Jefferies....


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Seriously any Bulls fan had better hope Washington matches. But if they do who will Zeke go after next?

I have a feeling Washington doesn't match.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Washington may match. Jeffries is a nice player but nothing to write home about. I am not worried about NY yet.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Seriously any Bulls fan had better hope Washington matches. But if they do who will Zeke go after next?


Personally, I don't think it's a big deal either way. Marcus Williams as their draft pick would have scared me a bunch more.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Hustle said:


> Seriously any Bulls fan had better hope Washington matches. But if they do who will Zeke go after next?
> 
> I have a feeling Washington doesn't match.


yeah, cuz we all know Jefferies has been carrying washington these last two years.

Seriously, who cares if he joins the Knicks? He's not a game changer at all. He's an OK role player who barely shines in Washington.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

It seems like an important signing now, but lets face it....Jared Jeffries sucks. Ok sucks may be a bit harsh. He isn't a very good basketball player. Bad rebounder, awful defensively, decent passer, now low post moves. Should fit right in with Isiah and the Knicks.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

This league's fascination with "length" continues.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

PD said:


> Now they just need to make their guards into productive role model players then they will have a decent team.
> 
> Curry
> Frye
> ...


A frontcourt of Curry, Frye and Jeffries scares no one and will never scare anyone. That is the softest frontcourt in league history. Who will defend? Who will block shots? Who will change shots? Who is a go-to scorer? Another bonehead move my Isiah.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

I think a change in scenery is all that Jefferies needed!!! I think this upcoming season he will play like a cross between Michael Jordan , Larry Bird and David Robinson!!! He'll easily lead the league in the main categories (PTS, REB, BLK, FG%, FT%, etc.) and it's highly probable that he'll be the first post player in league history to average a quintuple double!!!(PTS, REB, AST, BLK, STL)


Needless to say, there go our dreams of having a lottery pick next year as well of any hopes of winning a title before his retirement. Man, we all thought Isaiah was crazy!! Yeah, crazy like a fox!!!!!

Marbury, Francis, Curry, Jalen, Jamal, Jerome and now, Jefferies....


Dammmitt Pax!!!!!!
:curse:
Why couldn't we get that guy!!!

:banghead:

























:laugh:


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> It seems like an important signing now, but lets face it....Jared Jeffries sucks. Ok sucks may be a bit harsh. He isn't a very good basketball player. Bad rebounder, awful defensively, decent passer, now low post moves. Should fit right in with Isiah and the Knicks.


He isn't going to significantly change a team's win total next season, that's almost a given.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

What the hell do you mean awful D, strong, versatile D is his calling card!

and Washington said any reasonable offer, n Jeffries has now gone public that he wants out n doesn't want them to match.. Do they really want a malcontented starter?
I say Washington go ahead n sign Deshawn Stevenson to replace him in the starting lineup, sliding Caron Butler back to the 3.

How's 4.9 rebounds per game from the SF position?
He shoots a crappy % from the line though.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Here's what I wrote on the Knicks board:
Interesting. Here's the deal. The Wizards are going to pay the luxury tax if they re-sign JJ. This hasn't been talked about much, but I've run the numbers and it's pretty clear cut.

Not re-signing JJ saves them the luxury tax, but leaves them only a hair's breadth under the tax threshold both this year and next year. That is, it's unlikely that if he goes, they'd use the "savings" to sign someone else. Nor would it put them under the salary cap.

This really sums up the Wizards' in a nutshell right now. JJ is a nice player. I'd take a 6'11" 230lb guy who can play all five positions every day of the week for that price. And he's the Wiz' best defensive player. So he's valuable to them.

But the Wizards don't appear to have a lot of other options. Aside from Jamison making about $7m more than he should, they're paying a boatload to Etan and getting very little. Daniels is overpaid. If they could unload him, they'd be able to either re-sign Jeffries or let him go and have increasing flexibility in the future.

My vote would be to offer to not match the Knicks' offer on JJ if they will send us Mo Taylor (expiring contract) for Antonio Daniels and Etan Thomas. We take a small step back in the short run, but start getting our fiscal house in order by unloading two bad long-run contracts. I think in the short run we still have a good shot at making the playoffs. In the Summer of 08 we'll be $18.5M under the cap and we'll be able to both re-sign Jamison at a lesser price and also pick up a difference-making FA to take the team to the next level.

If the Knicks won't go for it, I think I'd grudgingly re-sign Jeffries and try to unload Daniels and Thomas through other means.

--------------------

Here's what I said in the Make an Offer thread:
---------> I'd also offer Sweetney and change for *Jared Jeffries* for pretty similar reasons. He's got the same size as Gooden, and much better intangibles and man defense, though he's not the natural rebounder Gooden is. I wouldn't offer $7M to start to Gooden, but I might offer $5.75M-$6M, which is a bit over the MLE.

A deal could probably be worked here that would appeal to the Wizards. By my estimate, they're slightly over the luxury tax threshold if they bring back JJ at any price. They'd probably be willing to make a larger deal if we'd take back a couple of their other guys to get them below the tax threshold. For example, we could offer do Sweetney + Allen + Basden = $5.16M (which means we can take back up to $6.46M) for Jeffries (resigned at $5.46M) and Calvin Booth ($1M).

That wouldn't completely get them out of the luxury tax, but they'd be close enough that they could make another move (Jarvis Hayes or Michael Ruffin + cash to cover his salary? to a team under the cap) to get there and save themselves several million bucks.

-----------

It's really too bad the Bulls are too busy "taking a deep breath" to seriously look into any of these young big guys. The MLE is a pretty reasonable price for Jeffries, and if we'd aggressively sought to keep improving we might have been able to get him. We aren't an obvious championship team contender (and most don't seem to think we'll be one for another few years), so it doesn't seem to me to be the right time to be resting on our laurels. And no, I'm not saying Jared Jeffries, by himself, makes us a championship contender, but I do think he makes us a better team (both now and in the long-run) without putting us over the luxury tax. So in my mind, if you can look to improve, you try to do it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> He isn't going to significantly change a team's win total next season, that's almost a given.


And no one would have thought Adrian Griffin was going to be a starter on a team that reached the NBA Finals either. That's sort of what I was getting at in my last post. JJ isn't obviously going to put a team over the top by his stats alone, but he's a nice player and a guy who's been described as "Mr. Intangibles". He also fits a need for this team. We're a good team either way, but we're a better team with him, so it would have been nice to have him.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

I think he should start for the knicks (he'd be the only guy on court that wouldn't need the ball!)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DC

MLE is $5M+ beans per year. Gotta count the beans.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

1. I hate Jared Jeffries. He may be a "nice player" in a lot of ways, but I just have totally irrational hate for the guy ever since a) he won Big Ten player of the year when I thought Frankie Williams should have gotten it and b) he parlayed that strong tournament into skyrocketing in the draft that year.

I almost don't care if he's worth it, I just hate the guy. =) That makes me a true hater.

2. Because I hate him so much, I'd rather see him on the Wizards than on the Knicks, simply because I think the Knicks are already bad enough. I want to spread some hatred around to other Eastern Conference teams. The way I feel about Jeffries is the way I feel about Austin Croshere: angry and full of contempt whenever I see him do anything substantial on the court. "CROSHERE YOU SUCK!" and "I can't beLIEVE you just let AUSTIN CROSHERE light you up", etc.

3. It's not too late to make a "role change" for Jeffries and style him like a straight up power forward. He's always been sort of a tweener, and not a bad tweener since he's been slotted next to other tweeners (like Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler), but barring my hatred, I'd like to see him take on sort of an Odom-like PF proficiency.

4. The guy could seriously work on his free throw shooting though.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

This would be a LEGIT NY starting line-up :

C Curry / James
F Frye / Lee
F Jefferies / Balkman
G Crawford / Richardson
G Collins (A TRUE pass-first PG) / Robinson

Let those contracts expire then trade Marbury & Francis for role-players and not more HUGE contracts. That team isn't a playoff team either (unless Frye and Curry explode) but atleast they have a better foundation and less selfish-ness.

C Curry / James
F Frye / Lee / Rose / Taylor
F Rose / Richardson / Balkman
G Francis / Crawford
G Marbury / Collins / Robinson

That's one ugly roster.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The ROY said:


> This would be a LEGIT NY starting line-up :
> 
> C Curry / James
> F Frye / Lee
> ...


It's a good idea but I think Marbury and Francis will ALWAYS bring back huge contracts.

Of the two, Francis is probably a little more desired out there. I think Marbury will stay a Knick for a long time... he's their guy.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Showtyme said:


> It's a good idea but I think Marbury and Francis will ALWAYS bring back huge contracts.
> 
> Of the two, Francis is probably a little more desired out there. I think Marbury will stay a Knick for a long time... he's their guy.


Shame. Telling the world you're going back to 'starbury' and playing 'your' way should of been the first thing to get him sent out of NY.

I look at the Knicks roster and I disagree with most people's opinion on it, it's not a good roster at all.

The roster is full of rejects, under-achievers & self-ish ballers. That team needs veteran leader-ship in the worst way.

Curry - "Our season depends on Curry" --- Zeke, afterwards Eddy responds with "I'm not a a 1st option, I'm a good 2nd option though" LOL!!!!

Collins - Didn't impress ANYBODY during the whole pre-draft workouts and summer league's. He's looking like the next Frank Williams.

Francis - He said he litterally cried from losing with the Knicks. He wasn't happy while he was there and I don't think he'll truely be happy again until he's traded.

Crawford - The only Knick to improve in the last few years. He's still not great, or a star, but he's won them a few games on his own.

Taylor - Probably won't see many minutes, expiring & will likely be traded before the deadline knowing Zeke.

Rose - Probably won't see many minutes, expiring & will likely be traded before the deadline knowing Zeke.

J. Rose - The perfect veteran problem child to mentor about of other immature problem children. It'll be hard to trade him before the deadline but obviously, Zeke will try to get something done.

Marbury - Still one of the most talented guards in the NBA, but still a bonafied loser that can't make a team a winner. He needs to be the FIRST to go, along with one of those expiring contracts.

Richardson - He played pretty well in L.A., excelled in Phoenix but came back to earth in N.Y. Not a bad back-up but definintely not a starter anymore.

Curry - Will always be good for 15 ppg & 6 rpg. Never will be a star or leader.

Frye - The best thing going for N.Y. If he can become the player we all think he'll be, he'll make Curry's flaws not stick out as much.

Lee - I've never seen him play, no comment.

Robinson - Everybody needs a player to spark the crowd. He's good for that.

James - Possibly the worst contract in the NBA. This dude is the definintion of garbage.

This team is trash


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I think that Jeffries is a pretty poor basketball player; he's a disruptive defensive player but doesn't do anything else. Essentially a 6'11 version of Trent Hassell. I've never seen him as a guy who is a game changer.

With that said though, I'm a bit worried about him going to NY. It tells me that Isiah is finally realizing the need for role players who don't need the ball all the time. A team of Francis, Marbury, Crawford, Nate Robinson, Jalen, Frye, Mo Taylor, and Curry doesn't scare me in the least since they're fighting for touches. But throw in scrappier guys like Jeffries and even a bum like Balkman, and maybe there's a little more balance there. 

I'm also still nervous that Isiah will somehow find a high tempo style for this team that Larry Brown would've never implemented...and that the end result will be an additional 10-15 wins. Even though they won't play a lick of defense, they'll win some games just by making the opposition adjust to their style. I still don't think they'll be a playoff team, but I could see them screwing us into a late lottery pick instead of top 5 again.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Jefferies is a career .595% FT shooter. Was he that bad at Indiana?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> DC
> 
> MLE is $5M+ beans per year. Gotta count the beans.


The musical fruit.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Jeffries is okay. I think the MLE is too much for him though. The idea that he can play 5 positions (which has been suggested in this thread) is nuts, IMO. He can't really guard 1's, 2's or 5's. Jeffries is also an abysmal shooter, his eFG% on jumpers was worse than Tyson Chandler's last year. I'm not getting too worked up over this.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

They're not even a team, just a poor group of players.

I'm not worried. We'll get a lotto pick REGARDLESS.

They WILL be one of the worst teams and we will get a top 14 pick out of a strong draft. I gurantee that right now.

Chicago
Detriot
Miami
Milwaukee
Cleveland
Washington
Orlando
Boston
Indiana
New Jersey

Unless something drastic happens to any of the above teams, they won't be better than any of those mentioned.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

What?? Is "J.J. the Jet Plane"' that good?? I think he will make about as much a difference as Francis,Marbury,Curry,Rose,Crawford,Frye,Robinson,and all other goons made.What makes him the guy that will get then out of the basement?? They Knicks are sorry.Zeke will be fired and they will have yet again the worst record.If not the worst then deffinatly top 3.


----------



## derf (Jul 2, 2006)

jbulls said:


> Jeffries is okay. I think the MLE is too much for him though. The idea that he can play 5 positions (which has been suggested in this thread) is nuts, IMO. He can't really guard 1's, 2's or 5's. Jeffries is also an abysmal shooter, his eFG% on jumpers was worse than Tyson Chandler's last year. I'm not getting too worked up over this.


 Tell that to Kirk and Chris Duhon


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Here's what I said in the Make an Offer thread:
> ---------> I'd also offer Sweetney and change for *Jared Jeffries* for pretty similar reasons. He's got the same size as Gooden, and much better intangibles and man defense, though he's not the natural rebounder Gooden is. I wouldn't offer $7M to start to Gooden, but I might offer $5.75M-$6M, which is a bit over the MLE.
> 
> A deal could probably be worked here that would appeal to the Wizards. By my estimate, they're slightly over the luxury tax threshold if they bring back JJ at any price. They'd probably be willing to make a larger deal if we'd take back a couple of their other guys to get them below the tax threshold. For example, we could offer do Sweetney + Allen + Basden = $5.16M (which means we can take back up to $6.46M) for Jeffries (resigned at $5.46M) and Calvin Booth ($1M).
> ...


I'm not as down on Jeffries as some of the other folks in this thread, but I don't know what he would really bring to the Bulls and I definitely wouldn't trade Sweetney for him. 

Sweetney's got issues, to be sure. But he is:

(a) a good rebounder
(b) a space eater
(c) a banger
(d) a player who can keep other bigs off the block
(e) a player who can play with his back to the basket in the low post, and back a man down.

In other words, he's unique to the Bulls. He offers several things that no one else on our team can. And these are the things Jeffries can't offer either. 

I just don't see it. He's a nice pick up for some team. But not really for the Bulls. And definitely not for Sweetney. If we deal Sweetney, we need to get a player in return that has some of Sweetney's positive attributes due to their singularity on this roster.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not as down on Jeffries as some of the other folks in this thread, but I don't know what he would really bring to the Bulls and I definitely wouldn't trade Sweetney for him.
> 
> Sweetney's got issues, to be sure. But he is:


... very sporadically...



> (a) a good rebounder
> (b) a space eater
> (c) a banger
> (d) a player who can keep other bigs off the block
> (e) a player who can play with his back to the basket in the low post, and back a man down.


and pretty consistently...

(f) a poor man to man defender
(g) a poor team defender
(h) a poor scorer against players with any sort of size 
(i) a player who, by virtue of his slowness, is very hard to mesh with our up-tempo younger guys.



> In other words, he's unique to the Bulls. He offers several things that no one else on our team can. And these are the things Jeffries can't offer either.


You're right. I mean, I agree that in terms of style of play, he does a lot that no one else on the Bulls does, and that's something. And JJ certainly isn't that type of player (Neither is Gooden or Chris Wilcox or even Al Harrington... some of the other guys I've wanted us to take a shot at).

But here's the rub. The things he does that nobody else does... he still doesn't do them well or consistently. Even in his best moments last year- probably the Miami series - he had one good game and five pretty crummy ones. The one he put up the best numbers in we got blown out. I know, I know, it was against very good competition, but he generally was not very good. He was the Jannero Pargo of our bigs.

And you're right... Jeffries isn't your prototypical banger. But he's a legitimate 6'11" 230lb player. And he's mobile. And while not a physical marvel, is athletic and a good defender. A guy who's his size can defend most any big man in the game Given the game the Bulls _want _to play (going here off the things Pax has said in several interviews and the players they've added), he does some things that Sweetney can't do. Stay on the floor consistently. Run the floor with the rest of the young guys in an up-tempo lineup. Defend most of the bigs in the league. 



> I just don't see it. He's a nice pick up for some team. But not really for the Bulls. And definitely not for Sweetney. If we deal Sweetney, we need to get a player in return that has some of Sweetney's positive attributes due to their singularity on this roster.


I dunno. I think... and I think the Bulls think too, that given the rest of the roster, they aren't too important. If they were, the Bulls would have gone out and tried to get someone who can provide it better than Sweetney can.

Don't get me wrong, I think they (and I) would like a guy who could really play the big man's game. But given the choice between a mobile guy who can mesh with the bigger direction the team is going and defend most other team's big guys and a guy who legitmately plays the big man's game but not very well, and who has a hell of a time playing consistently given the rest of the team, I'd take the mobile big guy and the Bulls should too.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> ... very sporadically...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jeffries is an able defender, but I just don't see how you make him work on a team that has Ben Wallace playing 35 minutes a night. That's a total vacuum of frontcourt offense...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Jeffries is an able defender but, I just don't see how you make him work on a team that has Ben Wallace playing 35 minutes a night. That's a total vacuum of frontcourt offense...


Well, that's 13 a night as Wallace's backup. Personally, when we don't _need _Wallace out there, I'd actually like play him a little less and keep as much of his tread as possible for down the road. Be it the playoffs or just a couple years away.

Another 5-10 in various places. He doesn't have to play a huge amount next to Wallace, and if the other guys on the court are strong options - say Deng or Thomas at the 3 and Kirk and Ben in the backcourt, that'd be fine.

I'm not saying he's the best option in the world or anything, I just think it'd work. It ain't gonna happen, of course, but if a similar player came down the pike (and there are a couple available right now- and without the offensive issue), it'd be nice to get one.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Well, that's 13 a night as Wallace's backup. Personally, when we don't _need _Wallace out there, I'd actually like play him a little less and keep as much of his tread as possible for down the road. Be it the playoffs or just a couple years away.
> 
> Another 5-10 in various places. He doesn't have to play a huge amount next to Wallace, and if the other guys on the court are strong options - say Deng or Thomas at the 3 and Kirk and Ben in the backcourt, that'd be fine.
> 
> I'm not saying he's the best option in the world or anything, I just think it'd work. It ain't gonna happen, of course, but if a similar player came down the pike (and there are a couple available right now- and without the offensive issue), it'd be nice to get one.


His main role would be as a backup center? I don't think he's a 5 at all. He certainly doesn't rebound like one, and he blocks a shot as often as he attempts a 3. Opposing centers put a 18.6 PER against Jeffries last year. Post defense isn't his strength, he guarded swingmen more often than bigs in Washington.

I can see how he would be an MLE guy for a team like New York, who need a versatile defender, already have a bunch of scorers, and are plenty big up front, I don't get it for Chicago. It sounds like you're suggesting paying Jared Jeffries 5 million dollars plus a season to play limited minutes out of position...


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

There really is nothing to talk about is there. Debating JJs role on the Bulls when there's not a iota of a chance that he'll be playing here. And im freaking reading it, what does that say about me?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Losing Jefferies could be devastating to the Wizards, which would be good for the Bulls. Jefferies is a glue guy, who kind of does a little bit of everything. Some of you all have obviously seen very very very little of him. But he has the ability to play positions 1-5, with his strength being the 2-4 spots. Defensively he uses his length well, and IMO if you put him in front of the Pistons defense from the last few years, he is Tayshaun Prince.

It looks like Isiah is trying to turn the 3 spot in New York into the defensive spot.

Balkman and Jefferies are obviously being picked to play a kind of Rodman type role. With Francis and Marbury supposed to be Isiah and Dumars. They won't be that type of team defensively though. But I like everything I've heard from Isiah this summer. He is going to be playing an uptempo style, that allows the players just play, as opposed to look over their shoulders at the bench all game. And considering the players they have, turning it into an uptempo playground game would be to their advantage. The main thing is just to get them to trust each other and if they play an uptempo style, that should happen.

I think it's a pipe dream to think you'll get anywhere near Oden with the Knicks pick next year. Just make sure you end up in a position where swapping the picks actually means something, because I'm thinking it probably won't matter that much. And if it doesn't, then you have to question the Eddy Curry move in the first place. Unless Tyrus Thomas becomes a stud, which I doubt.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> His main role would be as a backup center? I don't think he's a 5 at all. He certainly doesn't rebound like one, and he blocks a shot as often as he attempts a 3. Opposing centers put a 18.6 PER against Jeffries last year. Post defense isn't his strength, he guarded swingmen more often than bigs in Washington.


I don't think that number has a lot of validity in this context. First, 82 Games only listed him playing center for 3% of the minutes there. That's such a small sample that the numbers could wildly swing either way based on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Jeffries. That'd be like looking at the "Deng as a SG" PER and saying it meant anything.

If you did want to look at numbers though, how about the Wizards lineup where they played

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 625pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="832"><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 157pt;" width="209"> <col style="width: 10pt;" width="13"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 10pt;" width="13"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 12pt;" width="16"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 11pt;" width="14"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 17pt;" width="23"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 15pt;" width="20"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 9pt;" width="12"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl24" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" height="17" width="64">#</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 157pt;" width="209">Unit</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 10pt;" width="13"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Min</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 10pt;" width="13"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Off</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 12pt;" width="16"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Def</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 11pt;" width="14"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">+/-</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 17pt;" width="23"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">W</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 15pt;" width="20"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">L</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 9pt;" width="12"> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Win%</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" x:num="" height="17" width="64">5</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 157pt;" width="209"> Arenas-Daniels-Butler-Jamison-Jeffries</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 10pt;" width="13"> </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">97 </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 10pt;" width="13"> </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">243 </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 12pt;" width="16"> </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">198 </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 11pt;" width="14"> </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">+45 </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 17pt;" width="23"> </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">15 </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 15pt;" width="20"> </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">8 </td> <td class="xl27" style="width: 9pt;" width="12"> </td> <td class="xl25" style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" width="64">65.2</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Because that's the context I'd like to play him in here. Replace the Wizards guys with Bulls guys and you get a lineup that should be able to run and score on everyone. Maybe he gave up a lot playing as the five, but he did it effectively enough to let _this _sort of lineup play quite well.

Gordon-Hinrich-Deng-Thomas-Jeffries would be a very effective lineup IMO.

Situationally (I'll concede you don't want to do it a huge amount!) Gordon-Hinrich-Deng/Noc/Thomas-Wallace-Jeffries could also be fine.



> I can see how he would be an MLE guy for a team like New York, who need a versatile defender, already have a bunch of scorers, and are plenty big up front, I don't get it for Chicago. It sounds like you're suggesting paying Jared Jeffries 5 million dollars plus a season to play limited minutes out of position...


Not really... I think a guy like Jeffries is well used in the sort of lineup I'm suggesting. As far as how much we have to pay him... in the longer run, with Brown out of the picture down the road, he'll play more. And you always have to pay more for size.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mgolding said:


> There really is nothing to talk about is there. Debating JJs role on the Bulls when there's not a iota of a chance that he'll be playing here. And im freaking reading it, what does that say about me?


Freak! :clown:

Yeah, there's little chance Jeffries will play here, but at least to me it's more interesting to think out how a guy would fit than talk about things like Jannero Pargo's future in the Greek league. 

Not that there's anything wrong with that! It's just that it's simply enough for me to know his future isn't here. Different strokes for different folks.

For the record, I think the Bulls are going to end up using VK in this role. In one of Pax's recent interviews, he described him as a "6'9" to 6'10" guy" who can do a lot of different things while talking about the need for big guys. Maybe VK is a legit 6'10"? I dunno. Can he do it? I dunno.


----------



## derf (Jul 2, 2006)

I think JJ is a difference maker. as a sophmore he was the best player on a national championship team. He was a starter on an NBA playoff team the year he would have been a senior at Indiana. Against the Bulls in the playoffs he made the key defensive play and forced Kirk and Chris to turn it over Knocking the Bulls out of the playoffs. 

His career is just beginning to come into focus, but he has already acheived more than most. there is no reason to consider his game a finished product.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> I think it's a pipe dream to think you'll get anywhere near Oden with the Knicks pick next year. Just make sure you end up in a position where swapping the picks actually means something, because I'm thinking it probably won't matter that much. And if it doesn't, then you have to question the Eddy Curry move in the first place. Unless Tyrus Thomas becomes a stud, which I doubt.


So what pick do you see the Knicks giving us this year?


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> I think it's a pipe dream to think you'll get anywhere near Oden with the Knicks pick next year. Just make sure you end up in a position where swapping the picks actually means something, because I'm thinking it probably won't matter that much. And if it doesn't, then you have to question the Eddy Curry move in the first place. Unless Tyrus Thomas becomes a stud, which I doubt.



The Bulls got the 2nd pick in the draft from the Knicks this year...so I don't see why it would be a pipedream to get a top 5 pick again next year from the Knicks...it's not like the Knicks have improved that much this offseason...if I had to put percentages on it, I would say it's 50-50 on the Bulls getting a top 5 pick from the Knicks and 80 to 90 % of getting a top 10 pick...I just don't see the Knicks making such a big improvement this coming year...and I'd say so far the Curry trade seems to be pretty good...Bulls already got Tyrus Thomas from it and will most likely get a shot at a great player in next year's draft...


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

jalen5 said:


> The Bulls got the 2nd pick in the draft from the Knicks this year...so I don't see why it would be a pipedream to get a top 5 pick again next year from the Knicks...it's not like the Knicks have improved that much this offseason...if I had to put percentages on it, I would say it's 50-50 on the Bulls getting a top 5 pick from the Knicks and 80 to 90 % of getting a top 10 pick...I just don't see the Knicks making such a big improvement this coming year...and I'd say so far the Curry trade seems to be pretty good...Bulls already got Tyrus Thomas from it and will most likely get a shot at a great player in next year's draft...


furistxen implies that Tyrus "_must_ be a stud" for the Curry trade to turn out in the Bulls favor, which must mean that Curry as of now is in fact a stud.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

jalen5 said:


> The Bulls got the 2nd pick in the draft from the Knicks this year...so I don't see why it would be a pipedream to get a top 5 pick again next year from the Knicks...
> 
> 
> > They were a 33 win team before Larry Brown went nuts with them. It's hard to imagine them being as bad as they were last year. What'd they have a new starting lineup every other week?
> ...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It would be interesting to find out why Scott Skiles is considered a great coach, and Isiah Thomas a terrible one. Because their records are nearly identical, with Isiah having a slightly better one.

Could be that one was Jordan's nemesis and the other not?
Or is it simply that one is a balding white guy from Indiana, and the other a black guy from chicago?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Why's this thread turned into a race issue?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sham said:


> Why's this thread turned into a race issue?


Because apparently that's what you'd rather make it. The racial component was not the only choice for debate. Only it's the one you chose to highlight.

Note the presence of the word "or".

Or is a neat little word. It's diffrent from "and".

I can have:
A
B

A and B.

OR

A or B.

I have A or B.

So your selection of B, is your own damn fault. If you're going to cry about it being a racial issue, it's your own fault for choosing that as your focus.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

For those of you still confused about Curry and other topics. Just imagine Tyrus dunking on Curry in this manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLkzLgZ5wdY


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Because apparently that's what you'd rather make it. The racial component was not the only choice for debate. Only it's the one you chose to highlight.
> 
> Note the presence of the word "or".
> 
> ...




You bring up an issue, I ask why, and it's my "own damn fault" for bringing it up?

Sure.

Skiles gets more respect from us and from critics, not because he's white, but because he's better. Teams he coaches, get better. In Isiah's one previous coaching gig to date, he took the 2nd best team in the NBA the previous season, made them first round calibre, and kept them there for three years. Skiles took a 4-12 team, and turned them into a 47 win team, and the league's best defensive team. 

Just saying.


Premptive response time:

"If I'm not mistaken, have Skiles's Bulls teams and Isiah's Pacers teams both not got beyond th efirst round? Why do you choose not to mention that?"

Well since they went into the first one without two of their starters, and the second with a not-as-good roster before giving the eventual NBA champions the toughest challenge they faced.....I'm not unduly worried by that yet. But that's another conversation for another time which I'm sure we'll have at some point.



(Incidentally, Scott's also achieved something Isiah hasn't. Round two. Just saying.)


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sham said:


> Skiles took a 4-12 team, and turned them into a 47 win team, and the league's best defensive team.


Not immediately. First he took them to a 19-47 record. Making a 30 win team a 20 win team.

Just saying.

And if you look at his time with the suns, he took over a 13-7 team from Danny Ainge, that in the last several full seasons they played had been 50+ win teams...and SHOCK, "turned" them into a 50 win team. Skiles record with the Suns was worse than the coach he took over for Danny Ainge.



> Premptive response time:
> 
> "If I'm not mistaken, have Skiles's Bulls teams and Isiah's Pacers teams both not got beyond th efirst round? Why do you choose not to mention that?"
> 
> Well since they went into the first one without two of their starters, and the second with a not-as-good roster before giving the eventual NBA champions the toughest challenge they faced.....I'm not unduly worried by that yet. But that's another conversation for another time which I'm sure we'll have at some point.


Incidentally, while we're making excuses, the Pacers team Isiah took over, lost Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Mark Jackson, and Chris Mullin. They were relying very heavily on Reggie Miller, Jalen Rose, and an unproven Jermaine O'Neal. I would say getting that team to the playoffs was a bigger achievement than any Skiles has done. Isiah effectively allowed Donnie Walsh to rebuild on the roll. It was because of Isiah that the Pacers never had a long rebuilding time like the Bulls did. It's hard to argue against Isiah when it comes to player development. Al Harrington, Jermaine O'Neal, and Ron Artest all blossomed under him. 

Skiles big turnaround only came after Paxson gave him two lottery picks from one of the greatest drafts of all-time, in Deng and Gordon. And then signed Nocioni. And all three of those guys came out of the box ready to play. 

But this really isn't a Skiles is better or worse than Isiah arguement. I said originally that they are comparable coaches. They have both done about the same things in their coaching careers. Yet Skiles is revered as a head coach and Isiah is mocked. And I'd like to know why? There's no actual demonstrable reason for it.

Isiah has proven himself to be a good coach in the NBA. As much as someone like Skiles has. Yet why doesn't he get any respect? That's what I'm asking. And you still haven't given a good reason why.

And as for getting out of the first round, Flip Saunders took forever to make it out of the first round with KG, and nobody was mocking him.

So why are guys like that getting praised, and Isiah Thomas is getting mocked?

The Isiah is an incompetent boob campaign is largely hype, and wholly malicious. I'm trying to figure out what is driving that anger towards the man. It seems all that he wants to do is stay around the NBA and help the game. But is there someone in the game today who is more widely mocked and ridiculed?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> I would say getting that team to the playoffs was a bigger achievement than any Skiles has done.



Well if you think taking that roster to the first round was a more impressive feat than Skiles getting 47 wins out of our incredibly young 2004/05 roster.......then OK. It's hard to argue around that.




> Not immediately. First he took them to a 19-47 record. Making a 30 win team a 20 win team.
> 
> Just saying.


Exactly. Now you see how he made notable improvements. 23 wins to 47 is a lot. So's 30 to 47.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Skiles big turnaround only came after Paxson gave him two lottery picks from one of the greatest drafts of all-time, in Deng and Gordon.


Greatest draft of all time???? Okafor? Iguodala?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sham said:


> Well if you think taking that roster to the first round was a more impressive feat than Skiles getting 47 wins out of our incredibly young 2004/05 roster.......then OK. It's hard to argue around that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again. Not trying to argue Skiles is a better or worse coach than Isiah. I think they are comparable, and everything you've argued has been pretty much to that effect. You can't say that Skiles is demonstrably better than Isiah, when their records are nearly identical. Again. The question is, why is Skiles highly regarded, and why is Thomas mocked?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

JPTurbo said:


> Greatest draft of all time???? Okafor? Iguodala?


Who said it was the greatest draft of all time? I didn't. Do you think it's the greatest of all-time? I don't.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> jalen5 said:
> 
> 
> > The Bulls got the 2nd pick in the draft from the Knicks this year...so I don't see why it would be a pipedream to get a top 5 pick again next year from the Knicks...
> ...


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> You can't say that Skiles is demonstrably better than Isiah


Bloody can. You just won't let me.

Skiles is demonstrably better than Isiah.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> * Incidentally, while we're making excuses, the Pacers team Isiah took over, lost Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Mark Jackson, and Chris Mullin.* They were relying very heavily on Reggie Miller, Jalen Rose, and an unproven Jermaine O'Neal. I would say getting that team to the playoffs was a bigger achievement than any Skiles has done. Isiah effectively allowed Donnie Walsh to rebuild on the roll. It was because of Isiah that the Pacers never had a long rebuilding time like the Bulls did. It's hard to argue against Isiah when it comes to player development. Al Harrington, Jermaine O'Neal, and Ron Artest all blossomed under him.


I dunno how IT is going to do in NY this season. The roster is of his making, so you'd think he has some idea of what he was trying to build and how it should be played on the floor.

The part I bolded is really a keen observation.

We don't know how good a coach he is, ultimately. His track record is pretty short, though I agree with you that he did extremely well in a short amount of time with a roster in upheaval.

I think the observation about Indy rebuilding on the fly is astute, as well.

Thomas wasn't fired as coach because of his performance, it was because Larry Bird took over in the front office and wanted him fired. Feud back to their playing days.

This is not a comment on Thomas as a GM.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sham said:


> Bloody can. You just won't let me.
> 
> Skiles is demonstrably better than Isiah.


Isiah Thomas-131-115
Scott Skiles-135-126

Please. Elaborate. Because to my eyes, they have achieved remarkably similiar results. I see no reason to hail one and demonize the other as a coach.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I just told you. To which you responded that Isiah had the unproven Jermaine O'Neal, and that Skiles succeeded because he was given two of the best players from one of the best drafts ever.


....Of course, one _could_ argue that the fact that those two were rookies made them unproven too, as were the other two rookies to play huge minutes that season. And that it was Skiles who made them into proven quality.

But that would undermine your point, so I won't. :greatjob:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Thomas wasn't fired as coach because of his performance, it was because Larry Bird took over in the front office and wanted him fired.


That's conjecture. His performance was mediocre. The personal feud factored, but if Thomas was performing, it could have been overlooked. But he wasn't.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Not immediately. First he took them to a 19-47 record. Making a 30 win team a 20 win team.
> 
> Just saying.


Actually, he took over a team that just dumped Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall, and then proceeded to bring in a string of NBDL tryout players, and increased the winning percentage from the team's season record before he took over. That season was a fine job of coaching given the talent/experience level he had to work with. 



> And if you look at his time with the suns, he took over a 13-7 team from Danny Ainge, that in the last several full seasons they played had been 50+ win teams...and SHOCK, "turned" them into a 50 win team. Skiles record with the Suns was worse than the coach he took over for Danny Ainge.


Skiles was adequate with the Suns, I agree.



> Incidentally, while we're making excuses, the Pacers team Isiah took over, lost Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Mark Jackson, and Chris Mullin. They were relying very heavily on Reggie Miller, Jalen Rose, and an unproven Jermaine O'Neal. I would say getting that team to the playoffs was a bigger achievement than any Skiles has done.


Your history is correct. But you think getting that team into the playoffs was more impressive than taking the youngest team in the NBA, after an 0-9 start, to a 47 win season? Boy, I sure don't.



> Isiah effectively allowed Donnie Walsh to rebuild on the roll. It was because of Isiah that the Pacers never had a long rebuilding time like the Bulls did. It's hard to argue against Isiah when it comes to player development. Al Harrington, Jermaine O'Neal, and Ron Artest all blossomed under him.


Isiah didn't allow Donnie Walsh to do anything. Donnie Walsh's moves were excellent. Its no coincidence that Harrington, O'Neal and Artest all happen to be excellent and talented players. They've done wonderfully under other coaches as well. 



> Skiles big turnaround only came after Paxson gave him two lottery picks *from one of the greatest drafts of all-time*, in Deng and Gordon. And then signed Nocioni. And all three of those guys came out of the box ready to play.


One of the greatest drafts of all time? Okay.

How can you give Isiah the credit for Harrington, O'Neal and Artest (two of which had years of NBA experience before Isiah got them - O'Neal just needed minutes) but not Walsh, but then give Paxson all the credit and Skiles none when discussing rookies? Doesn't make sense. 



> But this really isn't a Skiles is better or worse than Isiah arguement. I said originally that they are comparable coaches. They have both done about the same things in their coaching careers. Yet Skiles is revered as a head coach and Isiah is mocked. And I'd like to know why? There's no actual demonstrable reason for it.


Personally, I don't mock Isiah as a coach. But he was fired from Indiana, in part, because the team never really improved under him. 41 wins. 42 wins. 48 wins. First round playoff loss every season. 

Conversely, Rick Carlisle took over that same roster the very next season and won 61 games and lost to the eventual NBA champs in game 6 of the Conference Finals. Isiah did a commendable job with a decent roster that first year. Year 2 was okay. Year 3 was a major failure. Taking his tenure in Indiana as a whole, he didn't get it done. 

This year we will see if Skiles can get his team past the first round. Something Isiah couldn't do in three seasons despite having a wonderfully talented roster. 



> Isiah has proven himself to be a good coach in the NBA. As much as someone like Skiles has. Yet why doesn't he get any respect? That's what I'm asking. And you still haven't given a good reason why.


Isiah has proven to be a fair coach in the NBA. Not terrible, not worth keeping long term. Skiles, in wins and losses, is kind of the same. But he does have the extra feather of turning a terrible and inexperienced team into a playoff team in one season. Isiah will get his chance this year to add that to his resume. 

If he can turn his 23 win team into a 47 win team like Skiles did, lets talk. 

And for what its worth, I think most folks mock Isiah for being such an impressive failure as a GM, not for his coaching record. 



> And as for getting out of the first round, Flip Saunders took forever to make it out of the first round with KG, and nobody was mocking him.
> 
> So why are guys like that getting praised, and Isiah Thomas is getting mocked?


Was someone praising Flip? If they were, was it because he has coached in 2 conference finals and had a 64 win season? 



> The Isiah is an incompetent boob campaign is largely hype, and wholly malicious.


Its definitely malicious. And funny. And as a GM, completely accurate. 



> I'm trying to figure out what is driving that anger towards the man. It seems all that he wants to do is stay around the NBA and help the game. But is there someone in the game today who is more widely mocked and ridiculed?


TODAY, there is no one associated with the game that is a bigger failure. That he has failed with such arrogance in the biggest market in the league probably doesn't help. Guys like King and McHale stink too, but they fly under the radar a bit.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> TODAY, there is no one associated with the game that is a bigger failure. That he has failed with such arrogance in the biggest market in the league probably doesn't help. Guys like King and McHale stink too, but they fly under the radar a bit.


I'd like to add Danny Ainge to the "Incompetent Boob GM" list along with Isaiah and McHale. I definitely think Isaiah is the chapter president, though....


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> jalen5 said:
> 
> 
> > The Bulls got the 2nd pick in the draft from the Knicks this year...so I don't see why it would be a pipedream to get a top 5 pick again next year from the Knicks...
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> furistxen implies that Tyrus "_must_ be a stud" for the Curry trade to turn out in the Bulls favor, which must mean that Curry as of now is in fact a stud.


An above average center is more valuable than an above average SF/PF.

And, there is not having Curry last season and this season (“we lost our size”)… waiting for the lotto tickets to be purchased, the drawing to occur, cashing it in and now waiting for the benefits to materialize.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> An above average center is more valuable than an above average SF/PF.
> 
> And, there is not having Curry last season and this season (“we lost our size”)… waiting for the lotto tickets to be purchased, the drawing to occur, cashing it in and now waiting for the benefits to materialize.


What if your "above average center" is Eddy Curry?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well anyway...back to jeffries...he wants to play for the knicks. that's right. he wants to play for them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000634.html



> The Washington Wizards will receive a copy today of the five-year, $30 million offer sheet restricted free agent guard-forward Jared Jeffries signed with the New York Knicks on Friday. The team will have until next Monday to decide whether to match.
> 
> Jeffries's agent, Andy Miller, said Jeffries wants to play with the Knicks and hopes the Wizards do not match.
> 
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its no coincidence that Harrington, O'Neal and Artest all happen to be excellent and talented players. They've done wonderfully under other coaches as well.


Artest, while talented, is as combustible as he is effective. The Pacers learned this the hard way, as his actions helped turn a winning, contending team into an also-ran.

People rail the Artest trade all the time. I'm not sure how closely people were following the team at the time. Artest was imploding before our eyes as Bulls fans. Throwing weight machines. Kicking dents in the UC signage. And, the team he was on was brutal. People can say that acquiring Artest was a feather in the cap for the Pacers. But, they have not won **** in Indiana, and one of the main reasons is that Artest is destructive. The one year he kept it together they managed to make a run. Not sustainable though. 








> If he can turn his 23 win team into a 47 win team like Skiles did, lets talk.


Influx of Deng, Duhon, Nocioni and Ben Gordon vs the previous season.
A healthy, 4th year Chandler who was the teams leading rebounder and shot blocker.
An in shape, 4th year Curry who was the teams leading scorer.
Hinrich no longer being a rookie.

Skiles did a great job, but you are ignoring a lot with that statement.



> And for what its worth, I think most folks mock Isiah for being such an impressive failure as a GM, not for his coaching record.


I think a lot of people just hate Isiah to begin with and will rip him for anything that is convenient at the time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> What if your "above average center" is Eddy Curry?


Maybe you can have him as the leading scorer on a team with home corut in the playoffs?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Hello,

Let's end the Curry tangent now, eh? It's old, played out, and leads to nothing but trouble.

Thank you.





> Influx of Deng, Duhon, Nocioni and Ben Gordon vs the previous season.


Isiah can't really use the "wasn't given any decent players" excuse, since that too is his job.

And, as mentioned before, Skiles played a big part in making these players. All came in as rookies, and hadn't proven a thing on an NBA court.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> Isiah can't really use the "wasn't given any decent players" excuse, since that too is his job.
> 
> And, as mentioned before, Skiles played a big part in making these players. All came in as rookies, and hadn't proven a thing on an NBA court.


No doubt, Skiles did a great job.

But, as we saw, he can't win in the NBA with NBDL talent.

He had an influx of 2 lotto picks, one lotto caliber player (Nocioni) and a solid PG in Duhon. Also, he maximized the utility of the towers that season, IMO, as they led our team in many of the important statistical categories.

The trade deadline moves Isiah made last season were head scratchers. Mostly b/c Francis does not seem anything like the great player he was in his early years with the Rockets and Rose is long in the tooth. And, importantly, they are not Larry Brown type guys. But, at that point, I think he was just trying to get him fired. 

I think Deng, Nocioni and Gordon would be very good NBA players on other teams, even if Skiles was not the coach.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Maybe you can have him as the leading scorer on a team with home corut in the playoffs?


no one but you thinks that team was good enough. why do you have such high standards for the current team and such low ones for 04-05's?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> no one but you thinks that team was good enough. why do you have such high standards for the current team and such low ones for 04-05's?



I had high standards for the Bulls team going into last season... before they blew it up.

Paxson thought that team was good enough. He was ready to resign all of them, before extreme risk aversion took hold.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I had high standards for the Bulls team going into last season... before they blew it up.
> 
> Paxson though that team was good enough. He was ready to resign all of them, before extreme risk aversion took hold.



with everyone from that team extended, would they have been championship caliber? in how many years?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> I think Deng, Nocioni and Gordon would be very good NBA players on other teams, even if Skiles was not the coach.


So do I.

But this applies to the Knicks, too. Everyone one of their veterans has performed to a good standard in NBA stints prior to being with the Knicks (well, except Jerome James. He was always crap. But he wasn't THIS crap. Even Malik Rose had decent use as a energy guy off the bench).

Yet last year, every one of them regressed, thanks in no small part to the rather stupid way that Larry Brown used (or didn't use) them.

Does Isiah get Marbury and Francis, for example, back to their best? Or close to it? They were good players before him - will they be good players with him? If not, what does it say about his ability as a coach?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> with everyone from that team extended, would they have been championship caliber? in how many years?


That team was one consolidation trade for a legit, stud NBA 2 (gordon + deng trade) from being a contender this season.

Last season if that player was a PP type. Last season would have been 50+ wins and 2nd round even without PP IMO. It would have been 2nd round the 47 win season if Deng and Curry didn’t get hurt.

We're at the same point right now with the addition of Ben Wallace. One PJ Brown removing trade... and I'd still like Hinrich/STUD 2/Gordon as the guard trio. But, that STUD is clearly Thabo, so perhaps we're set.

But, you said nobody thought that team was good enough. Before the Curry heart issue, Paxson did. Paxson! John Paxson!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Wynn said:


> I'd like to add Danny Ainge to the "Incompetent Boob GM" list along with Isaiah and McHale. I definitely think Isaiah is the chapter president, though....


Agreed.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> But, you said nobody thought that team was good enough. Before the Curry heart issue, Paxson did. Paxson! John Paxson!


i actually agree, i mean if Curry was hated by Pax/Skiles like some think, then why even tender him. coulda just let him walk initially and freed up $ for a run at Allen/Redd or other.


but that said, i still think that something was going to be in the works to change things up, had Curry stayed. there were a few ways of going about it, and we chose the route that got rid of a poor defensive center. 

how many recent championship teams have had an absolute swinging door defensively at C? and you cant name a team that had Jordan, because he had a Thabo-like ability to defend all five positions.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> Does Isiah get Marbury and Francis, for example, back to their best? Or close to it? They were good players before him - will they be good players with him? If not, what does it say about his ability as a coach?



I don't think we'll ever see the Francis from his Houston years again. From watching him play a few times last year, he's just not physically the same player. I don't think much of Francis anymore... perhaps he'll turn it around. 

Also not a fan of Marbury. I think you'll see better production out of him this season given that the coach and players will be on the same page. But, big #s from Marbury does not often equal NBA victories.

I'm not defending Isiah by any stretch. I think he's pretty much a boob... although he coaching stint in Indiana was not brutal. 

I think the Knicks will be a better team this year than they were last year. But, with all those egos, its really hard to determine how its going to play out. It’s a toxic environment. They have plenty of good players though. But, environment and team play are vital as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> how many recent championship teams have had an absolute swinging door defensively at C? and you cant name a team that had Jordan, because he had a Thabo-like ability to defend all five positions.


( ... fine no more curry talk ... )


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Artest, while talented, is as combustible as he is effective. The Pacers learned this the hard way, as his actions helped turn a winning, contending team into an also-ran.
> 
> People rail the Artest trade all the time. I'm not sure how closely people were following the team at the time. Artest was imploding before our eyes as Bulls fans. Throwing weight machines. Kicking dents in the UC signage. And, the team he was on was brutal. People can say that acquiring Artest was a feather in the cap for the Pacers. But, they have not won **** in Indiana, and one of the main reasons is that Artest is destructive. The one year he kept it together they managed to make a run. Not sustainable though.


You are preaching to the choir on that one. I'm just saying he's talented. I would never want him back and didn't have a problem with the trade at all. Still don't. 



> Influx of Deng, Duhon, Nocioni and Ben Gordon vs the previous season.
> A healthy, 4th year Chandler who was the teams leading rebounder and shot blocker.
> An in shape, 4th year Curry who was the teams leading scorer.
> Hinrich no longer being a rookie.
> ...


And, if you follow futurexisten's logic, the Knicks are far superior already than their record would indicate due to Brown's failures as a coach. I think the scenarios are very comparable in the sense that if Isiah can turn his 23 win team into a 47 win team then he will have done something Skiles-esque. 



> I think a lot of people just hate Isiah to begin with and will rip him for anything that is convenient at the time.


No doubt about it. I "hate him to begin with" and I admit that makes his historic failures as a GM that much more enjoyable.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Like I said, enough of Curry. Any more of it gets deleted.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Sham said:


> Like I said, enough of Curry. Any more of it gets deleted.


the moves we made that offseason will affect this team for 10 yrs. it will be relevant from now til then, so why avoid?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think we'll ever see the Francis from his Houston years again. From watching him play a few times last year, he's just not physically the same player. I don't think much of Francis anymore... perhaps he'll turn it around.
> 
> Also not a fan of Marbury. I think you'll see better production out of him this season given that the coach and players will be on the same page. But, big #s from Marbury does not often equal NBA victories.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. I think NY will come out of the gates hot, feeling they have something to prove. Question will be, with all the toxicity, can they keep it going? Hope not. Zeke will have his hands full trying to keep everyone on the same page. I don't think he is a terrible coach, but I don't know if he is really capable of running that ship. I think its a short list who could.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Isiah has proven himself to be a good coach in the NBA. As much as someone like Skiles has. Yet why doesn't he get any respect? That's what I'm asking. And you still haven't given a good reason why.


This is probably the third post you've gotten in response to your original post. But anyway: 

I firmly believe that Skiles is a better coach than Isiah. Like you said, looking back at the numbers, Isaiah appears to have fared decently. During his last year as a coach, the Pacers won 48 games and were the 3rd seed in the playoffs. However, they were heavily favored in the first round against a less-talented Boston Celtics team (Pierce, Walker, and nothing else), but surprisingly lost in 6 games. Isiah was fired because of a poor coaching performance in sum, but he was especially awful during that series. I remember watching him consistently make mental mistakes, such as not conserving timeouts at the end of games, or taking out Reggie Miller on defense possessions and forgetting to put him back in on offense. Etc. His game-time decisions were *atrocious* and that's putting it nicely. After that final playoff series, Larry Bird couldn't take it anymore, and fired Isiah. 

What's most telling is that Carlisle took over next year and won 13 more games with the only roster difference being Brad Miller and Kenny Anderson gone/Anthony Johnson and Jeff Foster added (a net negative in my book). Phil Jackson is a legendary coach who made the Lakers (with few roster changes) 11 wins better last year. What is Rick Carlisle? What does that make Isiah Thomas?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> the moves we made that offseason will affect this team for 10 yrs. it will be relevant from now til then, so why avoid?


If there's one thing this board has done, it's to not avoid talking about Curry. And it's caused problems on multiple counts. It's time for a hiatus.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Sham said:


> If there's one thing this board has done, it's to not avoid talking about Curry. And it's caused problems on multiple counts. It's time for a hiatus.


what are the problems? if the problem is a lack of board harmony, i hardly see that as bad thing.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Who said it was the greatest draft of all time? I didn't. Do you think it's the greatest of all-time? I don't.


OK, one of the greatest draft of all time?!?!?!?!?! That's what you said.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

JPTurbo said:


> OK, one of the greatest draft of all time?!?!?!?!?! That's what you said.


Fun with words.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> what are the problems? if the problem is a lack of board harmony, i hardly see that as bad thing.



If it's relevant to the topic of the given thread, then it's fine. If it's not on-topic, then it's eligible for deletion, just like any other subject.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Sham said:


> If there's one thing this board has done, it's to not avoid talking about Curry. And it's caused problems on multiple counts. It's time for a hiatus.


The Curry/Davis, Crawford/JYD, Artest/Mercer/Miller, and Brand trades, together with the quality (or lack thereof) of draft picks have largely defined the fate of the Bulls franchise. So it's natural to want to second guess each of those trades and ask "what if?". 

Enough time has gone by to safely conclude that the Artest/Miller/Mercer and Brand trades were setbacks for the franchise and that the Krause draft picks (at least those that were not immediately traded away) were at best unhelpful. 

At this point it's reasonable to discuss from time to time (particularly at times like these when there is very little else to discuss) the wisdom of trading Curry, Crawford and Chandler. Obviously, we need to consider how well those young players are currently performing in order to evaluate the question. For example, if Chander leads NO deep into the playoffs by blocking 2-3 shots per game and pulling down 12 rebounds and scoring 10 per game, letting him go for a one year lease of PJ Brown and two 2nd rounders should provoke regret on several levels from fans. On the other hand if his stats are 7/7/1, then most fans will feel the trade was the right thing to do.

So, IMO discussions of Curry, Crawford and Chandler should not be discouraged, or relegated to the off-topic page, since second guessing trades is part of the fun of following a team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The Curry/Davis, Crawford/JYD, Artest/Mercer/Miller, and Brand trades, together with the quality (or lack thereof) of draft picks have largely defined the fate of the Bulls franchise. So it's natural to want to second guess each of those trades and ask "what if?".
> 
> Enough time has gone by to safely conclude that the Artest/Miller/Mercer and Brand trades were setbacks for the franchise and that the Krause draft picks (at least those that were not immediately traded away) were at best unhelpful.
> 
> ...


Or the fact that we followed the team with certain players on it and became their fans. Do we stop being fans of a player just because he's traded?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Or the fact that we followed the team with certain players on it and became their fans. Do we stop being fans of a player just because he's traded?


I thought that's when you started!

Sorry DB - couldn't resist. I don't mind the Curry dialogue for the most part. Especially given that we haven't even recovered all the assets from the trade yet. Seems fairly relevant to me, in reasonable doses.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> what are the problems? if the problem is a lack of board harmony, i hardly see that as bad thing.


Lack of harmony in terms of differing opinions, sensibly argued, is a good thing, and we want that!
The lack of harmony Sham was getting at is something else. More to the point, we've got a decent thread going on here talking about something that hasn't been beaten to death.

We generally don't mind folks taking threads off on tangents... hell, the whole Skiles vs. Thomas as coach thing is a pretty big tangent to the original post. But there's good karma tangents and bad karma tangents. The Curry one, is a bad one in this case. I think everyone understands and expects some talk and interest in ex Bulls, but c'mon... at this point I can recite everyone's positions verbatim. So going down _that _road in _this _thread... not productive.

If anyone wants to talk about it more, feel free to PM me or anyone else on the staff.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The Curry/Davis, Crawford/JYD, Artest/Mercer/Miller, and Brand trades, together with the quality (or lack thereof) of draft picks have largely defined the fate of the Bulls franchise. So it's natural to want to second guess each of those trades and ask "what if?".
> 
> Enough time has gone by to safely conclude that the Artest/Miller/Mercer and Brand trades were setbacks for the franchise and that the Krause draft picks (at least those that were not immediately traded away) were at best unhelpful.
> 
> ...



Right.

But not here.

Obviously, we're going to discuss Curry, Chandler, et al. We still have a vested interest in them for very apparent reasons.

But not in every thread, including those that were irrelevant. And that's how it was for a long time. So we're working on that.



In no way do we want everyone here to agree opinion-wise with everybody else. Because that would be just tediously dull. But we don't want the same debates in every thread.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Mmmm, yes. I agree with all of that.

Seems like all this topic of how we can discuss the C's has stopped all discussion of the C's.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

This thread is funny.

According to RealGM--JJ is most likely a goner. Luxury tax issues.

The Wiz have also signed Stevenson.

Knicks were also about to trade Q for Miles but thought Jeffries was the better fit.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Analysis:

<i>If Jeffries actually brings the defense and versatility to the table his reputation suggests then it would seem that Isiah’s strategy is to mix-and-match lineups, similar to the Dallas Mavericks. If this is true, it would seem to contradict his earlier pronouncements that he would shrink the rotation. Even should he be committed to chaining Malik Rose and Mo Taylor to the bench, and even assuming that Balkman’s minutes will be limited, it is difficult to see how Isiah manages front court minutes without thinning out the roster in that area.

Fiscal Impact. As mid-level exception signings go it’s hard to characterize this as outright horrible, if only because Jerome James still anchors the scale at that end—not to mention the training table. Jeffries is a big gamble because he contributes so little offensively that he must play stellar defense, at a position where there are few nights off, or he becomes a net negative. Anyway, if Jeffries really is just a decent defender backed by a pretty good defensive center then why not stay with less expensive options like Qyntel Woods?

I am willing to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt on Jeffries’ talent. I am far less charitable concerning Isiah’s ability to play the market. The full mid-level seems a bit pricey for a defensive role player that is not a bona fide shut-down guy at his position, especially when San Antonio basically turned their mid-level in to Jackie Butler and Francisco Elson. But then, if my understanding is correct, Jeffries already has turned down an even bigger contract offer to sign New York’s offer sheet. 

http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=386


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

GB said:


> Analysis:
> 
> <i>If Jeffries actually brings the defense and versatility to the table his reputation suggests then it would seem that Isiah’s strategy is to mix-and-match lineups, similar to the Dallas Mavericks. If this is true, it would seem to contradict his earlier pronouncements that he would shrink the rotation. Even should he be committed to chaining Malik Rose and Mo Taylor to the bench, and even assuming that Balkman’s minutes will be limited, it is difficult to see how Isiah manages front court minutes without thinning out the roster in that area.
> 
> ...


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

GB said:


> GB said:
> 
> 
> > More:
> ...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah, you like Jefferies because he CAN defend at the five, if you want to go play a small ball up tempo sort of deal. But in general it's an absurd thing to ask him to do on a permanent basis. What they did in Washington was kind of swing him around positions 2-5, trying to force teams into mismatches with their other players.

He's kind of essential for a team that has so many tweener players. Arenas is a 1/2. Daniels is a 1/2. Jamison is a 3/4. Butler is a 2/3. So having a guy like Jefferies saves your *** a lot of nights.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> The Curry/Davis, Crawford/JYD, Artest/Mercer/Miller, and Brand trades, together with the quality (or lack thereof) of draft picks have largely defined the fate of the Bulls franchise. So it's natural to want to second guess each of those trades and ask "what if?".
> 
> *Enough time has gone by to safely conclude that the Artest/Miller/Mercer and Brand trades were setbacks for the franchise* and that the Krause draft picks (at least those that were not immediately traded away) were at best unhelpful.


Seemingly yes, but with those players we don't get the good drafts picks of Kirk,JW(wellll...), Ben, even Sef (i'm excited about him). 

Brand, Artest, and Miller is a hell of a front court, but would mid level signings and weak draft picks(i'm assuming that team would have played better and made it to the playoffs before or current team) be enough support. As crazy as it seems because of how bad both of those trades were, I actually think we are a better team for it today, though there has been prolonged struggle.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Seemingly yes, but with those players we don't get the good drafts picks of Kirk,JW(wellll...), Ben, even Sef (i'm excited about him).
> 
> Brand, Artest, and Miller is a hell of a front court, but would mid level signings and weak draft picks(i'm assuming that team would have played better and made it to the playoffs before or current team) be enough support. As crazy as it seems because of how bad both of those trades were, I actually think we are a better team for it today, though there has been prolonged struggle.


Assume the bulls didn't make the brand and artest/miller trades.

They'd have Brand, Artest, and Miller in the front court.

They'd have had the 4th pick in the draft they got Curry and Chandler.

Their back court would at least feature Jamal Crawford and Trent Hassell. They'd have had Fizer as a backup PF. They would still have had the MLE to sign either Yell or Harpring.

From that point on, it's hard to predict what may have happened with their draft picks, MLE, and possible trades.

At this point in time, it'd be hard to imagine a team with just Brand and Artest and 3 scrubs not being pretty darn competitive...

But... if the Bulls committed to Miller at C and decided not to draft Curry, they'd likely have drafted Jason Richardson, who went 5th after Curry.

Barring any trades, the Bulls lineup would be:
Crawford/JRich/Miller/Artest/Brand
with bench of:
Hassell, Fizer, Yell/Harpring

Four of the five starters would certainly be All-Star candidates. The only weakness with that team would be at backup positions: C, and PG.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Woulda Coulda Shoulda 

We had to let my Cameron go .....

Consider it a slew of mercy killings 

To this day I think we had to deal Brand, Artest, Miller , Crawford , Curry and Chandler to move forward and totally dissociate from a cursed hardcore losing past 

Put it this way. I believe Kirk , Luol , Ben , Ben squared, Nocioni , Duhon and now Tyrus /Thabo are closer to truly contending than 

Elton and Clips , Ronnie/Brad/Bibs and the Kings and certainly Eddy/Jamdrop and the Knicks

Had that team stayed the course and toughed it out I really don't think that team could have found the way down the pipe out of Shawshank . They really didn't know how to win and they had been beaten so much that attitudunally they all needed new inspiration and different dynamics.

Individually they are all skilled , talented ,players ..maybe some of them with greater individual skills then those that replaced them on the current team 

But the court is like any other workplace where collective dynamics build success more frequently than one private idaho

This was like a end of the season finale on a soap where a bomb goes off and you know that someone is going to die and your left up in the air as to who it is ( in the tradition of The Dynasty wedding in Moldavia for those that remember )

In the soap that was that Bulls team little did we know it was the entire cast 

Aaron Spelling ( RIP ) eat your heart out 

But really- who gives a rip about mourning the dead still ?

We've been reborn into the basketball afterlife where we are cloaked with soft lights and warm glows 

Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - meaning what we got is what we got and that's a lot to look forward to for a team that has been built to contend and will be doing so pretty soon

_Cue Partridge Family's C'mon Get Happy _

IMO , there is no point getting morbid and morose ( and pulling teeth ) about wishing for the same type of success we have now with previous cast and crew


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

C Curry
F Frye
F Jefferies
G Francis
G Marbury

= Still garbage.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Woulda Coulda Shoulda
> 
> We had to let my Cameron go .....
> 
> ...


Intellectual laziness and indifference is not an entirely unreasonable attitude to have toward passtimes of no real consequence. But there is no reason why fans who choose to follow the fortunes of a franchise over longer periods of time should wipe the slate clean for management every season.

Those who would forget lessons learned from the mistakes of the past are doomed to tolerate those who repeat them.


----------



## Shabadoo (Feb 12, 2005)

> *Wizards will let Jeffries go*
> 
> The Washington Wizards will not match the New York Knicks five-year, $30 million offer sheet extended to restricted free agent forward Jared Jeffries last week, a league source told SI.com. Jeffries will become property of the Knicks on Monday.
> 
> The 6-foot-11 Jeffries averaged 6.1 points per game in 77 games (all starts) with Washington and was considered one of the top remaining free agents on the market.


http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/41809/20060805/jeffries_will_join_knicks_wizards_will_not_match_offer/


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Intellectual laziness and indifference is not an entirely unreasonable attitude to have toward passtimes of no real consequence. But there is no reason why fans who choose to follow the fortunes of a franchise over longer periods of time should wipe the slate clean for management every season.
> 
> Those who would forget lessons learned from the mistakes of the past are doomed to tolerate those who repeat them.



Totally. I'm with you 300% 

In simplicity , I'm just saying that right now our situation is good and that if we look into the past with some _now_ name players we had ,that couldn't get it done together, and wonder whether that team would now be better...I think anyone that thinks this is kidding themselves.

You are spot on though about lessons learnt from the last 7 or 8 years and trying to ensure that we don't repeat them


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Jeffries averaged 6 ppg and 5 rpg shot only 45% FG in 25 minutes last year. $6M per year for that?

Not like this guy is Bruce Bowen or anything. Another bonehead moves by the Knicks.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

The ROY said:


> C Curry
> F Frye
> F Jefferies
> G Francis
> ...


That lineup has loser written all over it. Too bad somebody like Frye who has a chance to be a legit NBA player will be ruined by all that nonsense.

Don't be surprised Isiah starting
C Curry
G Crawford
G Rose
G Francis
G Marbury

Hahahaha.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Jeffries averaged 6 ppg and 5 rpg shot only 45% FG in 25 minutes last year. $6M per year for that?
> 
> Not like this guy is Bruce Bowen or anything. Another bonehead moves by the Knicks.


It's only a bonehead move if the money he's paid matters. 
The Knicks obviously don't care much about how much they pay their players.

The real question is whether they are better off with Jefferies than they would be with Butler. Both are bench players. Jeffries brings a bit more on perimeter defense, while Butler might have been a better rebounder and inside presence. 

All in all, it's hard to see that the Knicks fortunes next season are much improved by losing Butler and adding Jefferies.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Jeffries averaged 6 ppg and 5 rpg shot only 45% FG in 25 minutes last year. $6M per year for that?
> 
> Not like this guy is Bruce Bowen or anything. Another bonehead moves by the Knicks.


not everyone is done developing by 24 which is jared jeffries age , bruce bowen by example was not even in the nba at 24 and by his 26th birthday had played exactly 1 minute in the nba , he wasn't even a regular rotation player until he was 29.

the $ is unimportant they are way over the cap and wont be under it anytime soon .

what is important is he is a versatile defender and team guy a guy who like their draft picks balkman and collins allows their scorers to score while doing the dirty work...but unlike their draft picks has proven he can do this in the league already so he is a known quantity.

Zeke seems intent on getting guys who already do the little things and not so much on changing the guys already on the roster into something they aren't , unlike brown and putting in guys based on matchups and situations , making good use of the nba's rules that allow for changing the roster game to game.

i doubt he plays more than 10 on a given night , but that 10 should change nightly ,


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

McBulls said:


> It's only a bonehead move if the money he's paid matters.
> The Knicks obviously don't care much about how much they pay their players.
> 
> The real question is whether they are better off with Jefferies than they would be with Butler. Both are bench players. Jeffries brings a bit more on perimeter defense, while Butler might have been a better rebounder and inside presence.
> ...


Eventually the money will matter. If the Knicks are ever going to be a good team again, they will need to lose all those horrible contracts. Everytime they add another one, they dig a deeper hole.

As far as him developing, there is a chance, but paying for potential is usually a losing proposition in this league. Look at Curry, Chandler, Crawford, Dalembert among others who were paid for potential.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Eventually the money will matter. If the Knicks are ever going to be a good team again, they will need to lose all those horrible contracts. Everytime they add another one, they dig a deeper hole.
> 
> As far as him developing, there is a chance, but paying for potential is usually a losing proposition in this league. Look at Curry, Chandler, Crawford, Dalembert among others who were paid for potential.


I just tried the trade checker to see if we could somehow land Kevin Garnett should Minny decide to deal him at the trade deadline.

Bulls can't do it.

Knicks can easily do it.

That'd really be digging themselves in deeper.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Bulls could trade Ben Wallace and PJ Brown for Garnett after Dec. 15, if they were so inclined.


FWIW it works under Trade Checker.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Bulls could trade Ben Wallace and PJ Brown for Garnett after Dec. 15, if they were so inclined.
> 
> 
> FWIW it works under Trade Checker.


That's true. I was thinking more along the lines of ... we're going for broke by signing an older vet, why not two?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Bulls could trade Ben Wallace and PJ Brown for Garnett after Dec. 15, if they were so inclined.
> 
> 
> FWIW it works under Trade Checker.


Pity it won't work in reality.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Eventually the money will matter. If the Knicks are ever going to be a good team again, they will need to lose all those horrible contracts. Everytime they add another one, they dig a deeper hole.


Zeke's time horizon is less than one year at this point. If the Knicks don't improve significantly this year, Dolan will find someone else to run the team. So the eventual costs of aquisitions are probably the furthest thing from his mind. 

If Curry once again reports to camp out of shape, Butler will be missed; at least until Curry plays himself into shape sometime in February or March. By that time, Zeke will be out of a job. So I think he made a mistake getting Jeffries and letting Butler go.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

At the end of his career someone should do a tally of all the people Eddy Curry has cost their jobs because of not developing but still have tantalizing talent.

Jerry Krause, Tim Floyd, Bill Cartwright, Larry Brown.

Nice list so far.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> At the end of his career someone should do a tally of all the people Eddy Curry has cost their jobs because of not developing but still have tantalizing talent.
> 
> Jerry Krause, Tim Floyd, Bill Cartwright, Larry Brown.
> 
> Nice list so far.


I'm not so sure Eddy has tantalizing talent anymore. Maybe it is all the bashing he takes here, but I'm not so sure he's not just an above average scorer and little more. He's flashed his scoring skill enough to call him a scorer...but he's never flashed above average shot blocking ability, he's never flashed above average rebounding. It may be a pipe dream to imagine him developing those skills. I think that thats how Skiles sees him.

If Kevin Garnett were 6" shorter with the same athletic talent, he'd still make his way in the league. If Eddy were 6" shorter he'd be doing something else with his life. He'd probably be happier too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=292&sid=873415

WASHINGTON (AP) - Having found a cheaper and more enthusiastic alternative in DeShawn Stevenson, the Washington Wizards said Monday they won't match the New York Knicks' offer sheet for restricted free agent Jared Jeffries.


The Wizards had seven days to match the Knicks' five-year, $30 million deal. They spent the week signing Stevenson _ who, like Jeffries, is known for his perimeter defense _ to a contract that will pay him the NBA minimum of $932,000 for the upcoming season.


"Jared's representative made it crystal clear that he preferred being in New York," Wizards president of basketball operations Ernie Grunfeld said. "And we feel we have plenty of players who can take up the slack. We have players that want to be here."


The 6-foot-11, 240-pound Jeffries, selected by Washington with the 11th overall pick in the 2002 draft, has averaged 6.1 points and 4.9 rebounds in four seasons with the Wizards. Last season he started 77 games and averaged 6.4 points, but his greatest asset was his versatility as a defender.


Grunfeld said the Wizards will make up for Jeffries' absence with Stevenson and the return of Jarvis Hayes, who missed most of last season with a knee injury. The Wizards have also signed forward Darius Songaila and have high hopes for second-year player Andray Blatche, who played well during summer league games.


"We've added a lot of toughness to this ballclub," Grunfeld said. "Our toughness is going to get better, as well as our competitiveness. We're deep at every position. In all likelihood, this is the team we're going to camp with, and we're very comfortable with it."


A tentative Wizards starting lineup has either Stevenson or Hayes playing next to All-Star point guard Gilbert Arenas, with forwards Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison and probably center Brendan Haywood in the frontcourt. Training camp begins in early October.


When listing the key contributors for the upcoming season, Grunfeld did not mention first-round draft pick Oleksiy Pecherov, the latest indication that the Wizards are leaning against buying out the contract the 20-year-old Ukrainian has with a French team. With Washington's roster more or less set, Pecherov could benefit from the greater playing time he would get from another year in Europe before coming to the NBA.


"We think he has a good future in front of him," Grunfeld said. "But he's only 20 years old, so we don't want to put too much pressure on him at this time."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

On the radio here, Grunfeld mentioned toughness and Songaila in the same breath.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Book of Isiah 6-11



> -- Isiah Thomas has had this vision for the Knicks. The problem for the everyday world was not everyone could see it. That whole 23-victory mess last season clouded matters. But now, Thomas feels it is coming into focus for all to view.
> After all, it's hard to miss 6-11, 6-11, 6-11 aligned side-by-side-by-side.
> 
> But that's the front line Thomas, the Knicks president of basketball operations and head coach, can tote out, after officially signing Washington restricted free agent Jared Jeffries yesterday to a five-year, $30 million deal.
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I just want to say up front, that I think Jefferies was a good signing by Isiah. But this article, at least with regard to how Isiah talks about himself, is a laughable load of horse****. 



> Isiah Thomas has had this vision for the Knicks. The problem for the everyday world was not everyone could see it. *That whole 23-victory mess last season clouded matters.* But now, Thomas feels it is coming into focus for all to view. After all, it's hard to miss 6-11, 6-11, 6-11 aligned side-by-side-by-side.


Yeah, that whole second worst team in the NBA with a $125 million payroll sort of made Isiah's crystal clear vision a little bit murky to us ignorant outsiders. 



> *"Over the last couple of years, everyone has kind of been on me about 'What's the plan? What's the vision?'" Thomas explained. "In a rebuilding phase when you articulate it, it's hard for people to visualize* ... When you have a vision and a thought and you articulate it, it's not like having reality in front of you when you have 6-11, 6-11 and 6-11."


Oh, that was the vision. How do Steve Francis, Mo Taylor, Jalen Rose, Nate Robinson and 4 coaching changes fit into that vision?

Isiah-snake-oil-bull****-to-fact-translation: I've been flailing blindly for years, but I finally made a move I can sell as logical so I'll declare it was my vision all along. 

God, I hate that guy. I really do. And not in the the flippant way either. In the "if he was on a streetcorner in the rain and I was driving by I'd swerve to hit a puddle in an effort to cover him with muddy water" type of way. In the "it makes my day to read about allegations of sexual harrassment levied against him even if they are as false as the day is long" type of way.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I just want to say up front, that I think Jefferies was a good signing by Isiah.


In reality, IT gave up Butler (and, of course, a lot of money) for Jefferies. It's not clear to me that the Knicks will be better with Jeffries rather than Butler. 

Nominally, Jefferies is the better player. But good players at the 3 (Rose, Q) and 4 (Frye) positions will have to sit in order for him to play. What the Knicks gain in perimeter defense they lose in offense. Who is going to back up Curry? Jerome James I guess.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

McBulls said:


> In reality, IT gave up Butler (and, of course, a lot of money) for Jefferies. It's not clear to me that the Knicks will be better with Jeffries rather than Butler.
> 
> Nominally, Jefferies is the better player. But good players at the 3 (Rose, Q) and 4 (Frye) positions will have to sit in order for him to play. What the Knicks gain in perimeter defense they lose in offense. Who is going to back up Curry? Jerome James I guess.


They needed perimeter defense. And Jackie Butler is not a perimeter defender.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> They needed perimeter defense. And Jackie Butler is not a perimeter defender.


Trevor Ariza is. Too bad they dealt him for a terrible contract, and then gave Jared Jeffries way too much money to fill his role.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Trevor Ariza is. Too bad they dealt him for a terrible contract, and then gave Jared Jeffries way too much money to fill his role.


Jarred Jefferies and Steve Francis>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ariza

Money in New York is no object. It's not like the Bulls where they have to pinch every penny. How many bad contracts do the Knicks have to take on before you figure out that they don't care about the contract money. It's pocket change in New York.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

More good quotes. 



> "It was a slightly more productive use of their money than just setting it on fire, but not by much. "


John Hollinger

Knickerblogger.net



> *Has Thomas overpaid for Jeffries?* Personally I’d say yes, not necessarily in price but in years. In fact he’s similar to two SF that the Knicks had last year: Trevor Ariza & Matt Barnes. And neither has anything close to a 5 year deal (although Ariza’s deal wasn’t publicized it’s thought to be 3 years or less). Jeffries is young, but I don’t think his trade value will rise much over the next 5 years. Unlike most basketball players his weakness is easily seen through statistics, and his non-existent offensive game isn’t likely to become much better than it is now. GMs may not be able to determine a player’s defensive worth, but they’ll easily be able to see Jeffries offensive worth (or lack thereof) therefore lowering his trade value. For Isiah to hit the bullseye on this one, Jeffries has to start getting votes for the NBA All Defensive Team.
> --
> Secondly it’s hard to ignore that this decision comes on the heels of Jackie Butler’s departure. One week the Knicks don’t have the room or money to resign their 21 year old promising young center, and the next they’re paying more than double for a player with a lower ceiling. A year or two from now it would have been much easier to move Jackie Butler than Jeffries if for nothing else than Butler’s age & reasonable contract. In fact I would imagine some team might take a young, cheap, and talented player in Butler as a bonus for eating up a big ugly contract (Steve Francis). The Knicks’ roster doesn’t run deep at the center position, as the Knicks only have 2 true centers. When Curry is in foul trouble, Isiah Thomas may be forced into giving Jerome James substantial minutes which isn’t a palatable scenario. And on the nights that Curry and James are both in foul trouble, Frye will be forced to man the five, or heavens forbid Maurice Taylor or Malik Rose. Isiah should have been focusing on the team’s thinness at center rather than adding to the glutton at small forward.
> 
> So the Knicks overpaid for a player, that addresses a need that was already addressed in the draft, and in the process hurt themselves by not retaining one of their young prospects. For Jeffries to make this deal work, he’s going to have to become the lock down defender Isiah envisions or become a better offensive player.


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

It's just so great that he has to coach this mess he's assembled.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

the magic number is 35....

under 35 and we're more than likely a top 10 pick

anything under 40 will be a lotto pick....


----------

