# Is Pax complacent?



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Bulls seem to be set in stone for the upcoming season. I've not heard of anything in play. Personally, this ticks me off. There are lots of ways we could be improving (wing defender, true backup C, salary cap structure), and to seemingly refuse to look at ways.

One one hand, I will concede that our most obvious trading chip, Marcus Fizer, probably will gain value when he shows he's healthy.

On the other, a trade need not involve our most obvious chip. Maybe it would make more sense to move Marshall? He should have quite a bit of value, and taking him off the books would pretty much ensure we could re-sign Fizer as a long-term solution.

We loose a bit of experience, but Fizer's got 2.5 years under his belt and looked solid last year. Pax said at this point he considers Fizer a vet. If we sign him to a fairly long term deal, we've got that position locked up. If we keep Marshall long-term, we face some likelihood that he falls off as age keeps up with him.

And of course there are probably other deals that could be done on the periphery. Other FAs we might bring in, more solid that Dillybar, Trent, or Roger... 

All I'm saying is don't be complacent.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I think there is a difference in being complacent and knowing the value of stability.Pax has been on winners before and knows he has to settle on a core , he also must know by now with the JC_jwill goings on of last year sometimes you can add too much 

hassell -erob -mason jr are more than enough for the backup minutes at the 2 and 3 and since TC can play center it loosens up time at the 4 for the logjam there there is also dali who must play at some point at the 5 and is a true center plus blount whose role i'd like to see shrink as others grow into more competent players

i dont want anymore newcomers i would like to see the team in its current form stay as a whole for the next 2 season and see if it can grow as its supposed to


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I'm with *Grinch!*, here. Sometimes gratuitous change is harmful. We have a starting five with whom we are hoping to be well pleased. We have solid bench/sometime starters in Fizer, Marshall, Hassell to complete an 8 man rotation, and we have role players and developing players for the rest in Hinrich, MasonJr, Bax and company.

Let's let the pot brew fore a while before stirring it up any more...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I wouldn't call it complacency. I think most folks (Pax included) seem to think that our true improvement will come from within. Really, if Curry, Chandler, Crawford and to a lesser extent Fizer, Hinrich and the like improve to the levels that most say they should, this will be one helluva team.

I'm not sure what could resaonably be added to this team to make them appreciably better. At this point in time it all about the kids and getting them significant minutes. I think Pax has done reasonably well by adding Pippen. I'm not crazy about the Blount signing but he is a seasoned player who knows his place in the league.

This team has its foundation - like it or not - and it's time for that foundation to settle.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> This team has its foundation - like it or not - and it's time for that foundation to settle.


To clarify, I'm not disagreeing with this statement. In fact, I agree with it so much that I'm looking down the road and trying to see potential threats to that foundation.

And I see one. The Bulls will potentially be quite close to falling over the luxury tax "cliff" next year. Make a move on the periphery now and we ensure we have the financial capacity to keep our foundation in place.

Make no move because we mistakenly believe that every piece of the house is actually the foundation... and we might come up short for money when we need to re-sign the guys that will really matter.

So yes, protect the foundation and, as much as possible, continuity. But I'm not suggesting otherwise. They guys I'm mentioning aren't part of the foundation, and god willing they wouldn't (besides Fizer or Marshall) play much of a major role this year. As far as continuity goes, we'll certainly be bringing in 4 returning starters from last year, and the 5th will be Pip, a guy who's being counted on to add to, not detract from continuity.

Supposing we traded Marshall and ERob for a decent role player with an expiring contract, and possibly a future pick. Would that really disrupt chemistry so much? We'd be starting Crawford/Rose/Pip/Chandler/Curry with Fizer/vet with an expiring contract/Hassell/Hinrich as the primary backups. That doesn't look too different to me.

And in the long run, that trade may considerably help. It solidifies roles for our frontcourt players and reduces the likelihood we "lean on" vets like Marshall instead of Curry and Chandler. It makes it very likely we can sign Crawford and Fizer to long-term deals next summer and Curry and Chandler the summer after, all goals that are in my mind debateable questions right now. In the long-run, it seems to me such a move would solidify what we've established. No move, on the other hand, imperils it.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

The kind of deal you are looking for Mike is more than likely IMO going to go down at the trade deadline and will involve Fizer. This is assuming of course that we are on track to get a playoff berth. I think they will see Pip cant give more than 24 minutes a game and will move Fizer for a veteran swingman off the bench. If New Orleans is not in playoff hunt, Lynch could be a possibility. That type of deal is something I could see come February but not now since Fizer must prove his worth after injury.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't know that a deal like the one Mike suggessts would be so great. Marshall is signed at a real bargain price and he is a versatile veteran. I don't think we are making many other moves because the Bulls roster is full up! If we want to add anyone we would have to drop someone else. I think it stays the way it is now and if a trade is to be made it will be by the feb trading deadline.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

The problem that I see with moving a player like Marshal, with a very managble contract, and an albatross like E-Rob for an expiring contract is that there are 28 other teams in the league looking to do the exact same thing. Every GM in the league knows the game now and how its played and if you're offering junk, you're going to get someone elses' junk in return.

It looks good on paper but in reality I see it as being damn near next to impossible to deal a player like e-rob this season because of his contract and how many years are left on it. E-Rob will have more value to us when he's in his last contract year. You might be able to get some decent value for him at that time with a team looking to dump a decent player to save salary. Of course, that would put the Bulls in a potentially damaging situation with respect to the Luxury tax.

The best thing to do might just be to eat E-Robs contract until it expires and let him walk. We'd be in Lux Tax Land during his final season (assuming Craw and Fizer are extended and that Curry and Chandler are Max or near-max players). I believe Rose's contract expires the following season and he could be resigned for a fair amout less or he could just walk also.

It seems to me that in order to contend for a title in this league you're going to have to be at or over the lux tax limit. The Spurs look good right now but you've got to believe a good portion of their cap space that they have now will be used to retain Ginobilli and either Hedo or Mercer next season. Look at the Lakers, Kings, Mavs and T-wolves (the 4 other best teams in the league). They've all got healty payrolls and I think it's safe to say that the 2004 NBA champ will be one of those teams. The trick seems to be to have the most efficient contracts as possible without any "albatross" contracts like E-Rob or worse yet Vin Baker, etc.

Hey, at least we're not the Knicks or JailBlazers!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Milwaukee is another trading deadline potential partner. They will stink this year and I am sure they would like a scorer in the post like Fizer. Who knows maybe we could work something out where we bring in Kukoc for the second half playoff drive?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

This season is prove up time for a number of people.

*Bill Cartwright:* OJT is over. Its time to determine whether he's a capable NBA head coach or an affable father figure who happens to know a lot about basketball.

*Jamal Crawford and Marcus Fizer:* No more excuses, no more "if only's," no more inexhaustible patience...they're 4th year veterans and former lottery picks who need to produce in a very big way. Their NBA futures are riding on their performances this year. And we're not just talking about puting up impressive fantasy league numbers, either. Both players must play *winning basketball*. I don't care how great their individual stats are...if the Bulls are still a 30 win ballclub then I'd say as far as these two are concerned that its time to move in another direction.

*Trent Hassell, Lonny Baxter, Roger Mason:* Three guys without the security of a guarranteed contract who are consuming roster spots. They each have to prove that what they have to offer is equal to or greater than what crusty journeymen veterans on league minimum contracts can provide.

There are others who need to contribute positively to a winning effort, but these are the individuals that Paxson will need to make important decisions about during the season or immediately after it.

As a new GM, Paxson is getting to know what makes each of them tick in a way he never could as a member of the media. He's doing the right thing by taking the time to evaluate each of them thoroughly before determining whether they will be part of the Bulls future or not. 

Based on how this team performs this season we'll either see John tinker with personnel next summer or make some fairly significant changes. And that means that everyone from the head coach and his staff, to the players, to the equipment manager and to the scouts and talent evaluators will be on the proverbial _hot seat_ this year. Give it time...at least through the end of this season before expecting anything from Paxson that might be considered a blockbuster decision.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Convince Milwaukee to do a Fizer,ERob,Bagaric for Kukoc and Pryzbilla trade at the deadline.


Crawford,Hinrich,Mason Jr
Rose,Hassell
Pippen,Kukoc
Chandler,Marshall,Baxter
Curry,Pryzbilla,Blount


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I think there is a difference in being complacent and knowing the value of stability.Pax has been on winners before and knows he has to settle on a core , he also must know by now with the JC_jwill goings on of last year sometimes you can add too much
> 
> hassell -erob -mason jr are more than enough for the backup minutes at the 2 and 3 and since TC can play center it loosens up time at the 4 for the logjam there there is also dali who must play at some point at the 5 and is a true center plus blount whose role i'd like to see shrink as others grow into more competent players
> ...


:yes: :rbanana: Somebody finally making some sense.Continuity is the key to getting better.The teams with the most success all have good team chemistry and players who know their roles.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> The kind of deal you are looking for Mike is more than likely IMO going to go down at the trade deadline and will involve Fizer. This is assuming of course that we are on track to get a playoff berth. I think they will see Pip cant give more than 24 minutes a game and will move Fizer for a veteran swingman off the bench. If New Orleans is not in playoff hunt, Lynch could be a possibility. That type of deal is something I could see come February but not now since Fizer must prove his worth after injury.


Everyone knows that I have long been an advocate of Gorgeous George

I have even proposed trades of Fizer for Lynch + pick etc etc 

But Fizer has more long term benefit and I think if you have a glut and need to make a positional switch move you have to switch age for age - experience for experience.

Lynch is not a quick perimeter defender but what he is is a physical half court man on man defender who has real value in half court hoops - which is what playoff ball is reduced to 

It is my belief that in this type of ball Fizer is one of the best dozen pure post up guys in the league and perhaps in the top 3 in the East - [/u]right now[/u] . The others being Jermaine O'Neal, Eddy Curry 

It is my belief that George Lynch is in the top 6 or so physical on ball/on man perimeter defenders in the East _ right now _ with Ron Artest, Al Harrington , Desmond Mason, James Posey , Shane Battier and Ira Newble all worthy of mention 

Here is the thing though :

It is unlikely, that Mason, Posey , Battier and Newble will be seeing playoff action this season. So if we can acquire Lynch and there are 8 teams in the playoffs .. we go into the playoffs with conceivably a top 3 or 4 physical wing defender _ that we take away from a potnetial co-playoff team in New Orleans - thereby weakening them _ and we conceivably have 2 out of the top 3 post players in the East 

The point is is that on the front line we have our post offense covered in Curry and Fizer which is our strength - these two on rotation would be an absolute load and we have Chandler to be the disruptor / weakside intimidator on help defense. We have Corie Blount who is a boarder and who knows how to put a body on and can play back up Center ( as he will do ) in the East and we have Lonny Baxter to play a role if he need to back up at the 4 with some designated rebounding and bump and bang defense instead of going for an offensive push in Fizer

Then at the 3 we have Pip who is still cagey enough ( hopefully ) to use his smarts to get defensive plays effected and we have Lynch to throw himself around and body up on the Glenn Robinsons, McGradys, Mashburns Pierces and Artests/Harrington types. For these bigger guard/ forward combo guys he is the perfect cover. And we have ERob ( if we ever use him right ) to finish on the run and push if you want to out run/energise the other teams. Say what you like about him but he is as quick as anyone and can finish on the break if given the pass with the best of them.

The odd man out here is Donyell Marshall. I like him , he's a vet etc etc but Tyson is the better shotblocker and this season I believe will prove the better rebounder, Eddy and Marcus the better pure post scorers - and both showing marked improvement in the rebounding as the season went on, Baxter and Blount are the more physically intensive man on man defenders in the post 

Donyell may be a better "jack of all trades" then all of them but this is where the sum of the parts theory ( and having the best specific parts ) theory kicks in .. with a Coach who knows how to bring it all together and make it hum.

There is the fear of what we lose in our rebounding but that does not worry me that much. Chandler I think will claim that as his own this year and Curry and Fizer will make their improvements. Baxter and Blount ( in reserve ) are renowned for their rebounding hustle . And then you have George Lynch who historically has been amongst one of the strongest rebounding "3's" in the East.

In summary Marshall for Lynch is a trade that makes sense for both teams

Magliore, Brown and Mashburn will be the Hornets frontline with Marshall providing utility relief at all 3 spots and Traylor providing post up reserve support and Augmon stepping up his role in wing defense support. Which allows the Hornets room to develop Kirk Haston more slowly and give Courtney Alexander his opportunity in what may be a make or break season for him.

The Hornets get to the 2nd round with Lynch or Marshall - regardless

I will go out on a limb and say if we make this trade by the deadline - we are not only going to the playoffs but we're a legitimate shot of being a 2nd round team 

Nets
Pistons
Hornets
Celtics
Magic
Pacers
Bulls
Sixers


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

In fact with a Marshall for Lynch swap I like our chances against everyone we come up against in the playoffs ( if we make the playoffs ) except Detroit and New Jersey ... in that order


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> To clarify, I'm not disagreeing with this statement. In fact, I agree with it so much that I'm looking down the road and trying to see potential threats to that foundation.
> ...


We have two seasons of breathing space even if Crawford and Fizer are resigned for a combined $12M starting 

Its in the 3rd season from now when Curry and Chandler's extensions kick in where we may be in trouble .. but only if in fact there is a luxury tax in place at the time

It depends on a lot of things that no one knows for sure as to how they will shake out . 

But the carrot and stick approach of the current CBA is already having effect with owners pulling in their horns and BRI income is on the increase which is pushing the L tax limit upwards 

Indeed , NCBullsFan in his latest projections ( and with respect to Dan they are only projections with no absolute definition either way as to whether there will and whether there won't ) states that the ongoing application of a luxury tax may not ensue

The prelimiary arby bargy of the new CBA will no doubt have some influence.

Anyway Lynch and Marshall's contracts ( I am pretty sure without checking ) run side by side and so there is no long term effect in this regard other than committing to Fizer over Marshall now if you believe he is a fundamental piece as one of the top 3 post up players _ in the East right now _ 

And it is post up half court hoops and executing in these half court sets that wins playoff ball

So , in my opinion , the whole thing about being a winning team and paying your players to compete for it all .. and the retention of Fizer in this context ... for some may be a "chicken or egg" consideration but for me they are inextricably linked

I beleive the value of Marcus this season as we have head back to the playoffs will be proven and he will be retained for the future

A front court rotation of Curry, Chandler and Fizer backed by rotating Corie Blount/Lonny Baxter types is the future and is a dominant engine room to get us where we need to go.

There is our talent, there is our stability , there is our future and on that rock we build our Church


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Very nice points by many people in this thread.  

Also, with regard to the luxury tax, I'm guessing that our owner and GM would be willing to pay it if the alternative is to loose one of Chandler & Curry in free-agency at a time when they are both budding into star players and the Bulls are showing signs of potentially becoming a championship caliber team after years of struggling.

Also, I wouldn't be completely shocked if we paid the luxury tax to keep Fizer & Crawford, if both play so well this season as to demand the kind of money to put the Bulls over the threshold next season. Controlling costs at all costs is not the only consideration when running a franchise in a major market like Chicago. However, keeping Marshall around as the backup center would be a good thing to do if paying both players becomes a big concern to management--or we could rely on Baxter to step in if Marshall is dealt and Fizer bolts. If management thinks they can keep Fizer or replace him with Baxter, Lynch for Marshall does seem interesting from a Bulls perspective. Although I wonder if the Hornets would do it with Brown, Traylor, West and Haston already adequately covering the PF position. Maybe a 3-team deal is needed to give the Hornets an upgrade at SG? Here's an idea using a familiar trade checker:

Chicago trades: SF Donyell Marshall (13.4 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 30.5 minutes) 
SG Trenton Hassell (4.2 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.8 apg in 24.4 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SG Courtney Alexander (7.9 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1.2 apg in 20.6 minutes) 
SF George Lynch (4.5 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 18.5 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -5.2 ppg, -5.9 rpg, and -1.1 apg. 

New Orleans trades: SG Courtney Alexander (7.9 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1.2 apg in 20.6 minutes) 
SF George Lynch (4.5 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 18.5 minutes) 
New Orleans receives: SG Brent Barry (10.3 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 5.1 apg in 75 games) 
Change in team outlook: -2.1 ppg, -2.2 rpg, and +2.6 apg. 

Seattle trades: SG Brent Barry (10.3 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 5.1 apg in 33.1 minutes) 
Seattle receives: SF Donyell Marshall (13.4 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 78 games) 
SG Trenton Hassell (4.2 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.8 apg in 82 games) 
Change in team outlook: +7.3 ppg, +8.1 rpg, and -1.5 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Interesting trade FF 

If New Orleans are going to the post season ( and they will ) they can't rely on Haston and West in the front court and Tractor will play Center as back up to Magliore

Donyell can cover both forward spots and if Traylor goes down -which is a possibility given his conditioning then Yell is a 3 way utility player - or the Hornets play a core 3 man rotation of Magliore, PJ and Yell - and they don't skip a beat

West may be a good pro - Haston - I am not so sure about 

And we know how Pinky loves his vets and had extreme reluctance to play the youth here in Chi (hough given the youth we had in his tenure there is not much choice ) 

Anyway , Yell has 2 years to run and by that time hopefully one of West or Haston ( I think West ) will be ready to take the helm at PF alongside Magliore with PJ in vet reserve support.

I think a straight out swap is a good deal for both although I though your Brent Barry variation was a good idea too - its just that West and Haston make them too thin upfront come the business end of the season


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Interesting trade FF
> 
> If New Orleans are going to the post season ( and they will ) they can't rely on Haston and West in the front court and Tractor will play Center as back up to Magliore


I guess, I was figuring on Rooks getting the backup C minutes while Tractor plays PF. They also have James Lang at C who almost certainly won't see the light of day off of Floyd's bench this year. Still, I see your point in that Donyell offers an upgrade off the bench up front over the Traylor/Rooks duo.

I'm also uncertain as to whether they'd accept Augmon as the only backup SF in either the Marshall or Barry scenario given Mashburn's history of injuries. Of course, if Mashburn is injured during the playoffs, they'll likely be in trouble irregardless of whether Lynch is there or not.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I wouldn't guarantee New Orleans is going anywhere. Davis and Mashburn are injury prone, and they fired Paul Silas and replaced him with Tim Floyd.

Floyd replacing Silas has to be one of the most puzzling moves this offseason by any team. I could see that team getting a few early injuries and falling apart quickly under Floyd.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> 
> Floyd replacing Silas has to be one of the most puzzling moves this offseason by any team. I could see that team getting a few early injuries and falling apart quickly under Floyd.


Puzzled me, too. Gotta remember, though, that Floyd is a hometown figure in New Orleans, where he built a UNO team that was amazingly deep and good for such a small and unrecognized college. This may have had a lot to do with his being hired.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> Puzzled me, too. Gotta remember, though, that Floyd is a hometown figure in New Orleans, where he built a UNO team that was amazingly deep and good for such a small and unrecognized college. This may have had a lot to do with his being hired.


Yea, but Floyd's track record at UNO means squat to an NBA player. If things go wrong, he could just get crushed. :yes:


----------



## Wild Wild West (Jun 30, 2003)

I am upset with the apparent complacency also. Mostly because Pax seems to have no interest in using the anticipated injury exception. Yes I know we have 15 contracts now, so what! If we can pick up a player that will help us, better than Hassell, Mason, or Bagarich, then do it even if you have to eat a modest contract. If you need a roster opening to sign the injury exception then make a trade to create an opening. I have to think that there are at least some reasonable 2 for 1, or 3 for 2 deals that would free up room for another FA, and even if there aren't then surely we could trade a fringe player for a future pick (probably a second) and create a roster spot that way. 

I think it is Pax's job to find a way to use the injury exception to improve the team. No room at the Inn because of the status quo on contracts is not a sufficient excuse. Eat a contract or create an opening, but don't waste the exception. If he is waiting to combine the exception in a trade, that would be OK, and a possible good use for it.

Kismet had some good comments on players that have to prove if they are better than journeyman minimum contract level veterans, which is true. The injury exception is more than that however, not by much but a few hundred thousand more means in theory we should be able to get the pick of the litter from a very large group. I believe we could easily improve on Hassell, and Bagarich. They have enough of a track record that the burden of proof is against them. they might still improve, but time is running out, and if they don't improve they probably don't belong in the league. Mason of course is still an unknown, and I find Baxter's play so far encouraging.

Maybe Pax believes more in Hassell and Bagarich than I do, thinks Mason will emerge and Baxter will be an above average backup. I hope for those things too, but except for Baxter the kind of player you could get with $1.8M appears to be much better than the performance of Hassell, Mason, Bagarich, and Robinson for that matter during last year.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

just out of curiosity who could we pick up for the exception? 
apologies if someone already got into that earlier in this thread.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wild Wild West</b>!
> I am upset with the apparent complacency also. Mostly because Pax seems to have no interest in using the anticipated injury exception. Yes I know we have 15 contracts now, so what! If we can pick up a player that will help us, better than Hassell, Mason, or Bagarich, then do it even if you have to eat a modest contract. If you need a roster opening to sign the injury exception then make a trade to create an opening. I have to think that there are at least some reasonable 2 for 1, or 3 for 2 deals that would free up room for another FA, and even if there aren't then surely we could trade a fringe player for a future pick (probably a second) and create a roster spot that way.
> 
> I think it is Pax's job to find a way to use the injury exception to improve the team. No room at the Inn because of the status quo on contracts is not a sufficient excuse. Eat a contract or create an opening, but don't waste the exception. If he is waiting to combine the exception in a trade, that would be OK, and a possible good use for it.
> ...


I don't understand how you concluded that it seems that Pax has no interest in an exception that hasn't been granted.Exactly how should he act?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea, but Floyd's track record at UNO means squat to an NBA player. If things go wrong, he could just get crushed. :yes:


You are correct, sir! I was just trying to think of why they would have hired him, and that was the only reason I could come up with. Seems like after his ride with the Bull that he'd have to spend a few more years in the NCAA before being looked at again.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

I guess Pax's pick up of Gill disproves the complacency theory.:yes:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>realbullsfaninLA</b>!
> I guess Pax's pick up of Gill disproves the complacency theory.:yes:


''This way we are being fair with Dalibor by giving him a chance to go where he will get more playing time to facilitate his development,'' said Paxson, *who left for vacation with his family after signing Gill*.  

Complacent...no. Is he done reshaping the roster? It seems he is for the time being since he's finally gone off to enjoy some family time before things start getting real serious prior to the start of camp. 

John Paxson seems to have accomplished most of what he set out to do this summer. I'm sure he would have loved to add a more imposing presence as a backup to Curry in the middle. But all in all we're a much better team than when last season ended. He effectively replaced Williams with Hinrich and improved our perimeter defense immeasureably with the additions of Pippen and Gill. Their additions also have taken alot of pressure off of Jalen Rose in the leadership area as well. The younger players will have an opportunity to see how a number of real pros handle themselves in all kinds of situations on and off the court.

While none of Paxson's summer transactions in and of themselves can be viewed as "blockbuster" by nature, the collective effect of what he's accomplished should be significant and positive.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

With 100% hindsight, we can look at and evaluate Paxson's offseason moves:

Drafted Hinrich
Signed Blount
Signed Pippen
Signed Gill
Released Bagaric

Hinrich is an unknown, though many people aren't happy with the pick.

Blount, Pippen, and Gill are older veterans that do not resemble, in the least, all-star caliber players.

Bagaric's release makes us all happy.

If "complacent" means "tinkering at the edges," then he's absolutely complacent. There were absolutely no bold moves to drastically improve a 30 win team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Blount, Pippen, and Gill are older veterans that do not resemble, in the least, all-star caliber players.


How do you get an All-Star caliber player?

We didn't have any to trade in return. The #7 pick would not do it. The Bulls offering the MLE would not do it. What did we miss out on? 

The only real option would be to trade Chandler, Curry and Crawford for some borderline star. No thanks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you get an All-Star caliber player?
> ...


First, you don't have to trade an all-star to get one. The way some of our posters write, we'd dump a near all-star (Rose) for guys who aren't close. The same may be true of other teams - Boston does come to mind with their (supposed) desire to get rid of Walker.

Second, Juwann Howard might have signed with us for the MLE if we expressed any real interest. So the MLE might have gotten us an all-star quality player.

Third, there was an opportunity to make a trade before JWill's injury, but no such trade was made.

Maybe there was a chance to get KG from Minny for Crawford and Chandler, plus. That is a deal I would do.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> First, you don't have to trade an all-star to get one. The way some of our posters write, we'd dump a near all-star (Rose) for guys who aren't close. The same may be true of other teams - Boston does come to mind with their (supposed) desire to get rid of Walker.
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rumored deals for Walker this offseason.

Walker + 16th pick to Toronto for Antonio Davis and 4th pick.

Walker to Bulls for Fizer, Marshall, and JWill.

Walker +16th pick to Heat for EJones/Brian Grant and 5th pick.

Walker to Knicks for Sprewell

Walker to Knicks for Thomas, Weatherspoon, Harrington, and Ward.

Ainge says he's not about to make a deal that could rival the Vin Baker trade, but acknowledged that he's had some serious trade talks. -- South Coast Today


Re: Howard. He was Rose's college teammate, and may have liked to join the Bulls to play with Rose again. This was reported by both Chicago newspapers and NBA.com. The interest was expressed by Howard. Paxson showed no interest, so Howard went elsewhere. Complacent? Maaaaaybe.


Re: JWill. Right. He couldn't have known JWill would ruin his career on his motorcycle. He did have the opportunity to use him in a trade, and didn't. This is assuming that Crawford is the 2nd coming and JWill would be used as a reserve. Why not trade a reserve for a quality starter?

Re: KG. He's the best player in the NBA. The best defender. The best combination of high scoring, rebounding, and passing. He blocks shots, to boot. He's what Pippen would have been in his prime if he were 7'1" AND a better scorer and a better passer and a better rebounder. The odds of ANY player, present or future, being as good as KG are SLIM. Especially Chandler and/or Curry. 

If there was a window of opportunity to get KG, it was before Minny did the kinds of things Paxson might have done - to build a killer starting lineup of quality vets to go with his best player.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Given the T-Wolves moves this, it seems to me highly unlikely a KG trade was anything more than a Sam Smith fantasy.

And I am sure glad that we signed Pippen instead of Juwan Howard if for no other reason that the number of 4s and 5s we have.

And most of those Walker deals are crazy. One of those teams like the Knicks would have snapped him up in a minute if the deal was on the table.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't think we know all the names of players who could have been had. We don't know who was discussed, nor do we know who we could have (or have actually) asked for in a trade from other teams.

We do know who we did get, and who did move in other deals, and which FAs signed with other teams.

Blount, Pippen, Gill is who we got. Not Payton, Malone, Arenas, etc.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Blount, Pippen, Gill is who we got. Not Payton, Malone, Arenas, etc.


Addressing an earlier post:

We may differ on opinion, but we already have Walker and Howard in Marshall -- a 6'9" PF who can score and plays average defense. PPG is slightly different, but so is MPG. Last season, Walker played 40 MPG, Howard played 36 MPG, Marshall played 30. Efficiency ratings are vey similar. And we're trying to find an excuse to give Marshall fewer minutes.

Why do we need to upgrade at PF?

KG? See above. I like KG. I don't like KG at an exorbitant price. A price we would certainly have to pay. I also like Chandler and Crawdaddy. At a price I'm willing to pay.

Payton? Really? He's coming to us over the Lakers. Had I known he was so interested I'd have called him myself. Ditto Malone. Especially Malone. We could always use another PF. Especially one of Malone's caliber. Why didn't we offer him the league minimum before the Laker did? Pax is an idiot.

As a matter of opinion, Arenas vs Crawdaddy could be argued forever. My opinion is that Gilbert was a divisive force on his squad last season and was out for himself. I'd rather keep Crawdaddy, but this is certainly an opinion and open for debate.

Going into the off-season (pre-JayWill injury) I felt we needed to address depth at the SG/SF, needed to make sure we had a servicable back-up at C, and needed Vet leadership that would not take away from the minutes I'd like to see in C, C, & C.

Pax addressed these issues.

Malone, Walker, Howard, Glove, Arenas........ either not needed, or fantasy, or both.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I don't think we know all the names of players who could have been had. We don't know who was discussed, nor do we know who we could have (or have actually) asked for in a trade from other teams.
> 
> We do know who we did get, and who did move in other deals, and which FAs signed with other teams.
> ...


Aren't you really expressing your disappointment at the Bulls decision not to exceed the luxury tax threshold _until_ they become a winning ballclub?

Management has chosen to hitch its wagon to the futures of Chandler, Curry and probably Crawford as well. All three of these players may rightfully deserve extremely lucrative contracts when this season is over. Add to that the fact that in Rose and Robinson the Bulls are already paying out on two fairly significant multi-year contracts and I think it becomes rather clear as to why the Bulls chose not to acquire additional long term, high priced players.

If the three C's all deliver on their potential and become the hub of the Bulls franchise for the next ten years, you'll be applauding the judicious decisions Paxson made this summer to ensure the Bulls ability to pay their stars and retain them for years to come. We've waited for each of these players to evolve into upper echelon stars for a number of years now. Why change directions now? For each of these three players this is an extremely crucial season in terms of what kind of contracts they'll deserve next season. So we give them their chance to prove their worth, thats all. And if they become stars this season we pay them and win with them for a long long time.

Paxson's being patient for one year. I feel rather certain that if the team doesn't perform well with Crawford, Chandler and Curry as the hub and Cartwright as their coach, Paxson will make changes next summer. We've waited this long for the tree to bear fruit. What's one more season?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Walker was an interesting possibility, but he's definitely not a guy I'd overpay for. Especially given his iffy ability to play the 3.

Juwan Howard, all-star? :laugh:

I suppose I did mean "tinkering around the edges" when I said "be not complacent". The Gill signing, to me, was evidence of non-complacency. It's not a Dan Snyder overpay-the-fading-star move, but it's a smart move that puts an experienced, competent player on our roster in place of a couple guys that aren't very good or very experienced (ERob, Hassell), but easily would have been accepted as part of the status quo.

Why just "tinkering around the edges"? Because fundamentally the fabric of this team didn't need to be changed. It just needs to be aged and toughened.

And finally, I agree with Kismet... if money were no object, you might see more. However, money is an important consideration :|


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Things I would have tried to do differently:

Hayes in the draft
traded up a lil in the draft to get Ndubi Ebi
Tried hard to sign James Posey instead of Pip
Signed a vet backup pg, Travis Best, Darrell Armstrong sort of player.
Picked up a legit backuo center prospect.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

There was also the rumored deal with Toronto involving Marshall for the 5th pick which would have netted us Dwayne Wade. Pax supposedly passed on it. I have a nagging feeling doing so is going to come back to haunt us big time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My response to several of my fellow fans.

My global response is (to all):

This was a 30-win team last year. We played two lineups, basically, and neither was a playoff team (i.e. .500). The younger guys had a worse winning % than the Rose+Fizer+Marshall+Hassell one.

Blount is a nice 10th or 11th or 12th player for some teams. If he sees significant minutes, this team is in trouble!

Pippen and Gill were simply not highly sought after FAs. If they were, they would not be here. I think that is one of the most obvious statements I can make ;-)

Adding a 10PPG and an 8.5PPG player to the team isn't a significant upgrade. That's how I see it. To get the benefit of whatever skills these old guys have left, we HAVE TO PLAY THEM. I do not see how they can contribute anything in the locker room or sitting on the bench.

I am mostly intrigued by the signing of Pip IF HE PLAYS PG for us. He proved last season he can drive a team to a lot of wins at PG. I think he can do that for us, too. But I don't think he can do it as a point-forward or in a traditional SF role.

I also think that a three-guard rotation of Pip at PG, Rose at SG, and a 2nd unit of Rose at PG and Gill at SG is a pretty solid one. Those three combined for about 96 minutes per game last season, 41 PPG, 11.6 RPG, and 11 APG. Dallas' 3 guards (Finley, Nash, Van Exel) combined for 49 PPG, 11.6 RPG, and 14.6 APG, for comparison.

For Wynn:

This is a 30-win team. We need an upgrade at virtually every position to win a lot more games.

For Kismet:

The question of this thread is about Paxson's complacency. The issue is not my disappointment, but whether Paxson has merely tinkered at the edges of a pretty bad team, which can be contrasted with making big/bold/agressive moves to make the team better. Like what Minny did.

For MikeDC:

Check it out! Howard has played in more all-star games than the entire Bulls roster, minus Pippen. ;-) His one all-star season, he scored 22.1PPG, grabbed 8.1 RPG, and dished 4.4 APG. Last season he was 18.4 PPG, 7.5RPG, and 3.1 APG. Not much worse.

Walker is one season removed from putting up numbers like CWebb. Now that's the kind of player that can take you deep in the playoffs, given a quality supporting cast. I don't think Boston has much to help him out, beyond Pierce. But the Bulls would have a quality team to go along with his great all-round skills.

So yeah, I think we're pretty close to agreeing that Paxson was pretty complacent, and only tinkered at the edges.

Peace!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> There was also the rumored deal with Toronto involving Marshall for the 5th pick which would have netted us Dwayne Wade. Pax supposedly passed on it. I have a nagging feeling doing so is going to come back to haunt us big time.


I know this was a well published rumor but it doesn't make a heckva a lot of sense from the Raptors standpoint. Not sure what to believe. :|


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> There was also the rumored deal with Toronto involving Marshall for the 5th pick which would have netted us Dwayne Wade. Pax supposedly passed on it. I have a nagging feeling doing so is going to come back to haunt us big time.


I thought it was Marshall and the #7 for Lamond Murray and the #5 ? I think Pax passed on it because of Fizers injury.


DaBullz



> Adding a 10PPG and an 8.5PPG player to the team isn't a significant upgrade. That's how I see it. To get the benefit of whatever skills these old guys have left, we HAVE TO PLAY THEM. I do not see how they can contribute anything in the locker room or sitting on the bench.



Adding those 2 players is a HUGE upgrade in team KNOWLEDGE and experience.The Bulls last year were forced to substitute players that were learning the league with more players that were learning the league :no: .Now Pip and Gill insures us that we can bring in more guys that KNOW the game and can fill roles.

I guess were the only team in the league who's entire roster wont improve either by addition of better players or with experience


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

"Things I would have tried to do differently:

Hayes in the draft
traded up a lil in the draft to get Ndubi Ebi
Tried hard to sign James Posey instead of Pip
Signed a vet backup pg, Travis Best, Darrell Armstrong sort of player.
Picked up a legit backuo center prospect."



Interesting thoughts ACE, can't say I agree though.


I have no problem with the Hinrich pick. In fact I like it. Also getting Pip instead of Posey was easily the best thing to do. I agree with you that a legit backup center should have been attained. Sean Rooks is the name I wanted. Sign him let Blount walk and keep Bagaric. Also I would have attempted to trade for George Lynch and given Hornets either Marshall or Fizer whomever they wanted. Fizer would have been my preference.


Crawford,Hinrich,Mason Jr,Williams
Rose,Hassell
Pippen,Lynch,Robinson
Chandler,Marshall,Baxter
Curry,Rooks,Bagaric


However hindsight is 20/20 and for most part I am happy with what Pax has done.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> DaBullz
> 
> ...


Like I said, knowledge and experience are useless if you don't play the players, and play them how they are best used. That means Pippen at PG, IMO, just based on what he did at PG for Portland last season.

Last season, the Bulls had Blount, so he's going to add the same things he already has been. If Pippen and Gill are going to get the minutes that Hassell, ERob, and Hoiberg got last year, then we're replacing oldish vets with really old vets. Nibbling at the edges. 

The addition of better players does improve the team. The question is how much? This team has just about as much upward room to improve, and only improved slightly. 

Remember, the question is "is Pax complacent?" at a time when:

The Lakers added two awesome vets (as old as our two guys, but still playing at star/superstar level). 

The Mavs traded their #3 guard for a full-time SF who was a 22PPG scorer last season and who'll play full-time minutes for them. 

The TWolves went from 2 quality starters to 5. They added Cassell, Olowokandi, and Sprewell to a lineup that won 50 games last season! And they upgraded from our guy, Gill, to Cassell (or Sprewell, pick 'em).

The Kings traded a 17min/game player and a 14min/game player for Brad Miller, who'll be a great addition to their team.

&c

Do you not see a big difference in the quality of guys like Spre, Casell, Malone, Payton, and Miller vs. 38-year-old Pippen (averaged ~60 games a year for last 3 seasons, coming off knee surgery) and Gill?

Peace!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> "Things I would have tried to do differently:
> 
> Hayes in the draft
> ...


Well we all have our own thoughts about what should and shouldn'tbe done, thats why it's so great to play at being GM. Now we can look to next season and see how Hayes/Hinrich, Pippen/Posey and others work out and kinda get a feel for which one of us had the better ideas. Not that either one of us have BAD ideas or anything. I'm not a big Rooks fan and I probably would have tried to find a diamond in the rough like Will Mcdonald and have kept Blount to be the steady vet as Mcdonald develops.

You know what would be really cool? If one of these computer people would take the "realGM" concept to the next level and start a fantasy league where you could pay to "GM" a team, have 29 Gm's running each league, do a fantasy draft and base everything on actual player stats, set it up so you can do some things like in Madden 2004 for PS2 like price the hot dogs and tickets and things. And have certain awards for championship winning teams, most profitable franchise, etc... awarded by the "league admin". 

Ok, not exactly a well thought out plan, but you get the gist I am sure. Something that is a little more involved than say yahoo fantasy basketball (which is fun in it's own right)


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I am a believer that you don't worry about what moves other teams have made. You evaluate your team, determine what your needs are, and address them the best way you can. I think Pax has done this. The way I see it is we had 3 needs after last season (and Jay's accident). They are a guard off the bench( Hinrich), a veteran leader on/off the court to ease some of that leadership off Rose(Pippen), and a veteran defender at SG/SF(Gill). That along with improvement of 3 C's and a healthy Fizer is enough for me to expect a playoff berth this season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I am a believer that you don't worry about what moves other teams have made. You evaluate your team, determine what your needs are, and address them the best way you can. I think Pax has done this. The way I see it is we had 3 needs after last season (and Jay's accident). They are a guard off the bench( Hinrich), a veteran leader on/off the court to ease some of that leadership off Rose(Pippen), and a veteran defender at SG/SF(Gill). That along with improvement of 3 C's and a healthy Fizer is enough for me to expect a playoff berth this season.


i agree with most of what you said i think the bulls could use another pyhsical player in the post just in case we need to throw a few fouls around(did someone say bags?) but the bulls will get somewhere based on where their 3 C's and rose take them the bulls are now made lik a team thats ready to go places. Kirk imo is a better fit for the team than williams as he is more of a combo guard and is a better defender Gill IMO is more of a lateral move i dont think he is much better than hassell or robinson , but he only cost the minumum so whats the harm in the little FA swap between minny and chi. If anything could be done at this point I would hope the bulls might trade either hassell or mason jr. to get them an opportunity to play elsewhere (i am moreso wishing for hassell because he and gill are pretty similar in what they bring to the table)i think the bulls have a great shot at the playoffs this yearwith their current make-up


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

Paxson, in my opinion, has had a very good off-season. The main need for the Bulls was to gain some experience and defense. Complacent? I don't think so. You do not try to overhull a roster that is being built from youth. Major changes were not necessary. The core is there in Curry, Chandler, and Crawford. They all are young and all have only two full years of NBA play.
Championships are built through development in my eyes. The only real major cog to a championship team that was traded for or picked up, in recent years, was O'neil. Walker and Howard are not even close. Most of the Pistons developed at home. The Bulls- Jordan, Pippen, and Grant, all with the Bulls from the start. Duncan and Robinson, what were their other teams? O'neal is the exception. There is no Shaq to be had out there. The Bulls only chance of being dominant is sticking with that core and seeing how they gel. I think all three have the ability to become great. It becomes the third full year for each (barring injury, of course). I'd be surprised If at least two of the three don't break out, and I mean alot. This is how you build it. I remember a Pippen to Houston that was almost a sure thing. I guess it wasn't.
I read this board everyday. However, I'm just a blue moon type poster. I get to read alot of posts. I enjoy reading different perspectives and learning from others insights. Names are always kind of scrambled to me. I can't remember who posts what most of the times. I'd guess because I'm not interacting with them. However, two names always draw my attention; they are DaBulls and MichaelofAz. They create the spectrums. They are the extremes. I guess I would call it the diaper spectrum.
MichealofAz thinks every player should be young and picking up Pippen is about past glory and getting Gill is just getting some old dude that wastes space. He wants all young players.
DaBulls is on the geriatric side of the diaper spectrum. He wants them old, experienced, and already proven. He wants to trade for players that have had all star status using the Bulls youth to get them.
Both seem like very dedicated posters, which I can't say for myself. Both are very negative to managements moves from very different perspectives. You need experience on your team and young talent (at least while BUILDING for greatness). Putting all young guys on your team isn't going to get you anywhere. Trading young talant trying to get all-star doesn't seem the way to go either. The Bulls are sitting with a very talented starting line up and a deep bench. I say let's see what happens and reevaluate at the trading deadline. My guess isn't this team will win about 40, I think they will get 45 wins.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FBarley</b>!
> MichealofAz thinks every player should be young and picking up Pippen is about past glory and getting Gill is just getting some old dude that wastes space. He wants all young players.
> DaBulls is on the geriatric side of the diaper spectrum. He wants them old, experienced, and already proven. He wants to trade for players that have had all star status using the Bulls youth to get them.
> Both seem like very dedicated posters, which I can't say for myself. Both are very negative to managements moves from very different perspectives. You need experience on your team and young talent (at least while BUILDING for greatness). Putting all young guys on your team isn't going to get you anywhere. Trading young talant trying to get all-star doesn't seem the way to go either. The Bulls are sitting with a very talented starting line up and a deep bench. I say let's see what happens and reevaluate at the trading deadline. My guess isn't this team will win about 40, I think they will get 45 wins.


FYI,

I would trade one or two of our young players, plus try to sign a quality FA.

I agree with you that you need both experience and youth to build a championship team that can have as long a run as possible. 

In all of the trade scenarios I'd envision, we'd still have guys like Curry and Chandler and Fizer and Hinrich and Hassell. But we'd also have top quality vets (who are 30 or younger).

To me, it would be ideal for a team like the Lakers to win 3peat and then have 26-year-old Curry/Chandler/Hinrich types to carry on if/when Kobe/Shaq decline. That is my vision for the Bulls.

Peace!


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

Actually DaBulls, I kind of already knew that. I have seen you post that you like Crawford but you don't like him at all. I don't understand why you don't admit that. You suggested trading him for Walker instead of Williams. When the Bulls got Pippen you made the comment he would only be good at point. When Gill got picked up you said that Rose, Pippen, And Gill would make a great 3 guard combo to combine for all the minutes. Now you are mentioning keeping Chandler, Curry, Fizer, HINRICH, and HASSELL, but no mention of Crawford. There is no hiding who you want out. Why don't you just say who you want off the team. It hasn't been mysterious. I love Crawford and I think it would be a huge mistake to get rid of him. If you don't want him on the team just say it. There is nothing wrong with having that opinion, because it is yours.


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

to add on... my vision of the Bulls is Curry, Chandler, and Crawford to be the future. You envision Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich to be the future. What ever happened to that all-star that the Bulls traded Crawford for...is he no part of the vision?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FBarley</b>!
> Actually DaBulls, I kind of already knew that. I have seen you post that you like Crawford but you don't like him at all. I don't understand why you don't admit that. You suggested trading him for Walker instead of Williams. When the Bulls got Pippen you made the comment he would only be good at point. When Gill got picked up you said that Rose, Pippen, And Gill would make a great 3 guard combo to combine for all the minutes. Now you are mentioning keeping Chandler, Curry, Fizer, HINRICH, and HASSELL, but no mention of Crawford. There is no hiding who you want out. Why don't you just say who you want off the team. It hasn't been mysterious. I love Crawford and I think it would be a huge mistake to get rid of him. If you don't want him on the team just say it. There is nothing wrong with having that opinion, because it is yours.


You misstate my feelings about Crawford.

I really do like him. I just think he has the most trade value, and that we have other guys who can play his position. Like Rose and Pippen and Hinrich.

When I mentioned Chandler, Curry, Fizer, Hinrich, and Hassell, I was listing the YOUNG guys we'd still have if we made a trade, using Crawford (and Marshall). If JWill didn't get hurt, I'd be pushing to trade HIM instead, even though I think he was the only one of our young guys who actually had superstar written all over him (hence the hype coming out of college).

I am reluctant to see THREE/FIFTHS of the team on the court be so unprepared for live NBA play. Since Paxson has said that Curry and Chandler are the "cornerstones" of the franchise, then it seems as if Crawford is the odd man out.

If the Bulls had a lineup like this:
<DD>Crawford, Rose, Chandler, Walker, and Howard
then I would have ZERO problem with Crawford being the PG for all the minutes he can handle.



> to add on... my vision of the Bulls is Curry, Chandler, and Crawford to be the future. You envision Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich to be the future. What ever happened to that all-star that the Bulls traded Crawford for...is he no part of the vision?


As I see it, the 3Cs aren't championship material until they are much older. 5 years away or more. Why can't we win for those 5 years and at least gain playoff experience and have a chance to go deep in the playoffs every year while we wait?

People can harp about home grown talent all they like. Shaq was SEVEN years older than Curry/Chandler/Crawford when he won his first championship. Jordan was 30 years old, Pippen and Grant were ~28. And so on. Duncan was 26 when he won his first championship, but the Admiral was well over 30. Those are the STARS of the championship teams.

Our guys are 20. I simply believe they are that many years away from bringing us back to championship level.


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

I'm not sure I buy that. You mention a future of Hinrich, Curry, and Chandler with no mention of the all-star that Crawford could help bring. Now you mention others that could cover his position including Pippen and Rose (they are older and not mentioned in your vision) and Hinrich (he hasn't played an NBA game yet) Most Bull fans believe Curry, Chandler, and Crawford are the hope for a championship. I have to agree. An inside/outside game is the best stratagy to try to take a championship. Hinrich has not thrown a pass in the NBA, why him over Crawford. You did not mention Crawford"s trade counterpart as even being a factor for a future Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> You did not mention Crawford"s trade counterpart as even being a factor for a future Bulls.


Right. Crawford's trade counterpart is a factor for the PRESENT Bulls.

A guy that's been talked about (to death) already is Antoine Walker. He's 27. He'd have 7 or 8 years of productive play left in him. Is that enough future? I think so.

Here's some oddities for you.

Krause broke up the championship team because he didn't want us to become like the Celtics. The Celtics, at that time, were devastated by the loss of two key talents, Len Bias, and Reggie Lewis. They also had rode Bird/Parrish/McHale to the point beyond when they could win championships anymore. They had become one of the worst teams in the league, seemingly overnight. Well, contrary to Krause's best laid plans, the Celtics are a playoff team now, and we're close to setting the all-time record for futility, after 5 seasons of .250 basketball.

Krause also traded away the #1 pick in the entire draft, who turned into a 20/10 guy as a rookie, and who is now considered one of the best players in the NBA. To get Chandler, who in no way is considered one of hte best in the NBA. He traded away YOUTH. But he also traded away Brad Miller, Ron Artest, and Ron Mercer to get Rose. He traded away YOUTH.

Drafting Brand and trading for Rose were the two best moves he made in the last 5 years, IMO.

Peace!


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

Fair enough, but why wasn't Walker or a like mentioned in your vision? If he has seven years in him, why wouldn't his presence be embedded in your mind with Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich. I'm hoping this trio isn't formed beyond 2010 in the post-Walker era.
THe Celtics had more than 5 years of bad ball. Not as bad as ours but still bad and longer. Drafting Brand and trading for Rose were two of his better moves? Once again you took the older age standpoint on each issue. I liked both moves. Brand was a solid pick, however Francais was a better pick and O'neil (jermaine) wanted to sign a contract. Getting Rose and losing Miller gave time to Curry and killed Mercers contract. That was a good move. I loved Artest, but lets face it (he may have some minor issues to deal with). We'll never know if Brand and Curry(sounds like Indian breakfast food) would work better than Chandler and Curry, but I'm alright with the choice.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A guy like Walker has been mentioned in my "vision" for the Bulls repeatedly.

For instance, I wrote:



> To me, it would be ideal for a team like the Lakers to win 3peat and then have 26-year-old Curry/Chandler/Hinrich types to carry on if/when Kobe/Shaq decline. That is my vision for the Bulls.


Let me translate for you.

"To me, it would be ideal for the Bulls to 3peat and then have 26-year-old Curry/Chandler/Hinrich types to carry on if/when Rose/Walker/Howard decline. That is my vision for the Bulls."

Paxson has said "Curry and Chandler are the cornerstones of this franchise." I'm fine with that. But Crawford wasn't mentioned. Neither was Fizer, or Rose, or Marshall, or Hassell, and so on. If those two are untouchable, OK. But this is a 30 win team, and the question is still "Is Pax complacent?" I say yes, because he didn't trade _anyone_ (except Curry and Chandler) to bring in real help to upgrade this team.

As for the Celtics, they were devastated by the loss of two key players. Len Bias was drafted by a GREAT celtics team with the #2 pick in the draft. If the Bulls could have had the #2 pick in the draft at the start of their 2nd threepeat, and could have drafted a top talent like Bias, they'd have had no reason to break up the team. They'd have continued with our "Bias" and Kukoc, and I remind you that Pippen and Jordan were both still playing last season.

For the record, the Celtics went from record of 48-34 in 1992-93, to 32-50, to 35-47, to 33-49, to a bulls-like 15-67 in 1996-97. Then they went 36-46, 19-31, 35-47, 36-46, 49-33, and 44-38. That's 30+ wins during the six years the Bulls have failed to win 31 or more games.


(I agree about the Francis pick, see my avatar)

Peace!


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

I appreciate you translating for me. The question is would Rose, Walker, and Howard bring us a championship, much less 3-peat. If not, what exactly would Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich continue? I have read so many statements from you on here that many fans are diluted. Rose, Howard, and Walker bringing championships is very diluted. The Bulls have a better chance riding what they have. The best vision to have is right in front of you.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FBarley</b>!
> I appreciate you translating for me. The question is would Rose, Walker, and Howard bring us a championship, much less 3-peat. If not, what exactly would Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich continue? I have read so many statements from you on here that many fans are diluted. Rose, Howard, and Walker bringing championships is very diluted. The Bulls have a better chance riding what they have. The best vision to have is right in front of you.


If we want to compete for a championship, right now, we have to go through teams like the Lakers, Mavs, Kings, and TWolves (whichever wins the West) and the Nets, Pistons, Pacers, and 76ers in the East.

Would a lineup of Rose, Pippen, Chandler, Walker, and Howard be one heck of a team? Absolutely. They'd have a bench of Hinrich, Hassell, Curry, Gill, Blount, and Baxter.

Walker's Celtics, with Pierce and not much else is a playoff team that defeated Indiana in the first round and lost to eventual east champion Nets in the 2nd. We won't have Pierce, but we'll have Rose and Howard and Pippen and Chandler and Curry and Gill instead. In my view, it's both a playoff team and one that can advance deep into the playoffs. Championship this year? Maybe not. Next? Quite possibly.

Right in front of me, I have a 30-win team, and a lot of people who seem ready to nominate guys who've never scored 11PPG for a whole season for the hall of fame. I don't think it's dillusional to see a 30-win team as a 30-win team.

Peace!


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

Rose, Howard, and Walker winning championships is dillusional. Why does Walker sit so high with you? Boston fans like him, I understand that. THe rest of the league feels he is overrated. I agree, his percentages suck, and he shoots alot. He does a little showboat jiggle, I don't want to put him in the Bulls starting line-up, I want to put him in the back of a very short bus. Howard you mentioned as an all-star. Where has his teams come out? This is from a Michigan fan. You want Curry off the bench? He is the best one off both lineups listed by you (starting and bench). Crawford is my favorite player; Curry is the beast. Pierce makes the Celtics who they are. The Bulls have some very young players on their team. It is amazing what some players do in their second year to third year. Hell, ask McGrady


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Walker's Celtics, with Pierce and not much else is a playoff team that defeated Indiana in the first round and lost to eventual east champion Nets in the 2nd. We won't have Pierce, but we'll have Rose and Howard and Pippen and Chandler and Curry and Gill instead. In my view, it's both a playoff team and one that can advance deep into the playoffs. Championship this year? Maybe not. Next? Quite possibly.


A team built around Rose, Howard and Walker would never, ever win a title, IMO. As I have said before, two B-level stars do not equal one MVP- level player. It doesn't work that way. Just ask the Atlanta Hawks. Rose and Walker together would be a poor fit IMO, and those two paired with Howard would give us nothing more than a (probably) dysfunctional, poor man's version of the Mavericks.



> Right in front of me, I have a 30-win team, and a lot of people who seem ready to nominate guys who've never scored 11PPG for a whole season for the hall of fame. I don't think it's dillusional to see a 30-win team as a 30-win team.


Just cause they won 30 games last year does mean they will win 30 games this year, obviously. Young teams improve as they grow together. I greatly prefer the high-risk, high-reward path the Bulls management has chosen to your idea of trading away our future for a team that might be pretty decent for a few years but will never win a title.


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

DaBulls, I understand your reservations due to the age of the Bulls players. You are comparing the ages of players yesterday to today. Colleges have players for no more than two years if they look real good nowadays. You mention the age of the older generation players, why no mention of Kobe? He is much closer in path to Chandler, Curry, and Crawford than Jordan, Shaq, and others. Early entry in the NBA is the way now. You are putting up Celtic numbers, that bothers me a little. THe Celtics have had some great teams. If you are qualifying their teams above 30 wins as a show, I think you are off. They want titles, they have had them, tasted them, and want more. I want that same hunger. The Celtics were not set to win anything from the mid-80's to their recent showing. Don't make it seem like they were right there through those years based on 30 win seasons


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FBarley</b>!
> DaBulls, I understand your reservations due to the age of the Bulls players. You are comparing the ages of players yesterday to today. Colleges have players for no more than two years if they look real good nowadays. You mention the age of the older generation players, why no mention of Kobe? He is much closer in path to Chandler, Curry, and Crawford than Jordan, Shaq, and others. Early entry in the NBA is the way now. You are putting up Celtic numbers, that bothers me a little. THe Celtics have had some great teams. If you are qualifying their teams above 30 wins as a show, I think you are off. They want titles, they have had them, tasted them, and want more. I want that same hunger. The Celtics were not set to win anything from the mid-80's to their recent showing. Don't make it seem like they were right there through those years based on 30 win seasons


Some HSers do come into the NBA and look great. I've had to deal with that argument many times ;-) You mention Kobe. So, here's what I see when I look at Kobe:

Rookie 71 games, 15.5 min, 7.6 PPG
2nd season 79 games, 26.0 min, <B>15.4PPG</B>
3rd season 50 games, <B>37.9 min 19.9PPG</B>

I maintain my position on this. He demonstrated great ability in his rookie year. His second year already put him in the top 1/3 of NBA players. His 3rd season put him in the top 15%. When I say he demonstrated great ability in his rookie year, I think he did EVERYTHING he does now (shoot, score, pass, defend, rebound) with nearly the same level of ability. He just wasn't ready from the neck up. 

Garnett's progression was similar, as he also demonstrated the wide range of skills he has now in his first season.

The key difference between these kinds of guys (FRANCHISE players) and our guys (3 Cs) is that our guys do NOT demonstrate a wide range of skills, even after their 2nd season. Curry is a weak rebounder for a C and especially for someone his size; he hasn't demonstrated a good passing game; etc. Chandler's only offense seems to be the dunk, and while he does rebound (expect him to always be a terrific rebounder), I don't think his defense is very good at all. Crawford is not a good ballhandler under pressure (he defers to Rose), starts the offense near half court (where he's no threat), he's not a good defender, and he rarely penetrates. Critical, yes I am.

Another key difference is that these guys did not play with 2 other guys just like them who were being developed, as starters. They played with QUALITY vets, like Shaq or like Gugliotta, Laettner, Terry Porter, and Isaiah Rider. (Same is true for J. O'Neal in Portland).

Look at Kobe and Garnett. KG was a rookie in 95-96, and still isn't a champion. Kobe was a champion his fourth season, but he had a Shaq (we don't have a Shaq) who was playing in his EIGHTH season. I base my view that we're FAR from being a championship team (years away) based upon recent history of players who were much better (so far) than our guys.

This does not mean, in any way, shape, or form, that I suggest the 3Cs won't become great or that I suggest we give up on them. What I am suggesting is that they are much further away from being franchise players, and we should develop them AND try to win/advance in playoffs at the same time. It may be better to focus on the two twin towers at the expense of trading Crawford for a guy who will help us right now.

I'm not calling out anyone by saying this, but those who I suggest are overvaluing the quality of the 3Cs (which may well be Paxson himself) may be dooming us and them. If they are the focus of this team next season and we win 30-33 games, we may feel the pressure to make some more radical kinds of moves than those I propose.

I want you to consider that about this time last year, I was saying that the Bulls should NOT be looking to start JWill from game 1. I feel vindicated in that suggestion, because we know that he struggled, especially on the circus trip, and the whole team suffered. If he had been given gradual minutes, when we were up big or down big, and then given more responsibility, he may have had much more success, and the team would have been in the playoff hunt later into the season. (We should have kept and started Travis Best, at least early in the season).

Peace!


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

I mentioned Kobe because he is a young player that was a major piece of a championship. Was he more polished coming into the NBA than Curry, Chandler, and Crawford? Of course. Does that mean that none of the three can become franchise players? Of course not. They may not become as good as Kobe, but how many are. Not everyone comes into the NBA with an array of basketball skills right out of high school. The NBA is development for most of them. Shooting, scoring, passing, defending, and rebounding are learned skills.
McGrady is who I would pick to show development (hence, the "ask McGrady" comment I made earlier. I'd say his game was a little more unclear from the start.
first year- 7.0ppg, 1.5apg, 4.2rpg, 18.4mpg
2nd year- 9.3ppg, 2.3apg, 5.7rpg, 22.6mpg
3rd year- 15.4ppg, 3.3apg, 6.3rpg, 31.2mpg
4th year- 26.8ppg, 4.6apg, 7.5rpg, 40.1mpg (with Orlando)

He is a franchise player. He is not as clutch or as good of a defender as Kobe but pretty even on the rest. It wasn't clear he was going to be this type of player until his 3rd year. JUst because a young kid doesn't take the NBA by storm, doesn't mean that he won't be a franchise type of player. The three Cs have shown signs that lead me to believe they will be at least be quite good, if not franchise-type players. 

As for playing with "quality" vets, there is no Shaq to be had. I would take Rose and Pippen over any of the others that you mentioned. Throw in Gill and Marshall and I'd say there is some quality vet experience to mix in with the youth. Not to mention, Gill and Pippen are defenders (something the Bulls didn't have last year) and can share that skill with the young players. Defense was their greatest glaring weakness last year. I think all three can develop at the same time; we aren't starting 3 rookies. They all have experience now and it will show this year.
Getting rid of Crawford, Fizer, and Marshall for Walker wouldn't help the Bulls this year and definately not in the future IMO. Alot of fans believe this will be Crawford's break-out year. It may not happen, but I do agree that it looks good. I don't care for Walker's game at all. I wouldn't trade Crawford straight up for him, much less throw in Fizer and Marshall. Crawford could end being the most dominant player of the three Cs (I think Curry will be though). I like what the Bulls have now. I think they will win about 45 games. Anything can happen in the playoffs after that. The Bulls can beat any team in the east, even if they aren't as good as that team is. If i'm wrong and the Bulls struggle, then I think some changes should be made at the trade deadline.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bump

a great thread


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

BTW I'll piss my pants when the Wolves don't make it out of the first round again


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

No!  

p.s. Next look for Fizer and Craw to gain a role or be traded by the trading deadline.


----------

