# paxon on the score



## jbob2 (Jul 16, 2002)

wow! just finished listening, eddy has some work to do or he's screwed. 

i like'd the part about having a team of hard working players that would pull big ed along... i hope it works. 

to say i'm suprised on how paxon called him out would be an understatement, especially after lacy bank's article on wed. 

we'll see what happens. 



p.s. - start thinking of some good curry for other big men trades.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Details! I want more details!

Do tell.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jbob2</b>!
> wow! just finished listening, eddy has some work to do or he's screwed.
> 
> i like'd the part about having a team of hard working players that would pull big ed along... i hope it works.
> ...


Looks like Curry is the next scapegoat.

Who is after Curry? I'll pick Deng.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I missed the first 10 minutes but I heard the entire Eddy part. 

He defended the trade saying we would have had no flexibility locking Jamal into 7 years while re-signing Tyson and Eddy next year. He said without saying Jamal is not worth 56 million. Gave the company line "Jamal is a terrific player" while at the same talking about how individual players don't want games. 

He couldn't stress enough how much he values players who love the game and will continue to work at their game. 

He said some very interesting things about Eddy. He said he doesn't know what Eddy thinks about the game. His players must love the game and he's not sure Eddy does "yet". He's not going to be afraid to move him and just b/c he's he's a big Center, that doesn't mean a whole lot to him. He just wants to bring in the players that will work their arse off to get better and improve. He just couldn't stress enough about how he will bring in the right players if they don't have this attitude and he basically said he doesn't see it in Eddy right now. Listening to him, you can tell he's not going to just be satisfied with Eddy being an above average C (like some people seem to be ok with) if he's not constantly working on his game. 

The most interesting thing was that he said him, Skiles, and Eddy sat down April 16th and talked about what they expect of him and they want him in camp at 285. And he said he's got 7 weeks to do that. He weight in at 305 the other day supposively.

And if he's not at 285 by the time that 7 weeks rolls around, Pax said he will NOT be playing for the Chicago Bulls. He said that flat out. 

Mike North asked him if he thinks Eddy will get there, and Pax just said "I hope so, I hope so".


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I didn't hear the Pax Score interview, however from the sounds of it Pax took Eddy to task.

According to a poster on Realgm who heard the interview stated that Eddy wont be able to play or even PRACTICE if he isnt 285. 

I heard the ESPN1000 Pax interview in the late afternoon and he never took eddy to task at all in teh interview. 

Hopefully someone heard it and will be able to give a detailed account of the Score interview.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Good summary Chibulls.

Looks like Eddy Curry is on notice. Looks like its simple for Eddy:

Change Nothing=Good-bye Eddy
Get down to 285=Congrats, you can stay on the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*

if this is really his attitude, this franchise is doomed.

we won't play one of the top 5 offensive centers in the league if he is 5 pounds overweight? 

hahahahaha

his threat to ship curry out is absolutely meaningless to curry. he's getting paid this season either way and will get a large payday from a team no matter what.

all pax is doing is destroying his trade value, just like he did with crawford.

my god somebody stop him.

pax and skiles really need to go find a high school team to run. isn't that what skiles was doing before we hired him? this stuff does not fly in the NBA.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

If Eddy was POd before over the 320 stuff in the papers, this has to get him even more riled up. I like it, and hope Curry uses it to motivate him. Just hope he's working on his game in addition to losing the weight.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> his threat to ship curry out is absolutely meaningless to curry.


"All these false reports are just making me mad that I've got to put up with this kind of stuff from people, including my own team. I've never badmouthed the team by saying, 'I don't like the coach or the management and don't want to play for the Bulls.' This is where I want to be for the rest of my career, but people are trying to push me away. But this is my home, and this is where I want to stay.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bull...spt-bull04.html


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> if this is really his attitude, this franchise is doomed.
> 
> we won't play one of the top 5 offensive centers in the league if he is 5 pounds overweight?
> ...


He's not destroying his trade value, he's destroying his RFA value. On one hand, a team might be interested in a big young center with offensive skills. On the other, they might be scared off by having a big overweight young center who doesn't have heart.

Spin, baby.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> if this is really his attitude, this franchise is doomed.
> 
> we won't play one of the top 5 offensive centers in the league if he is 5 pounds overweight?
> ...


I could not disagree more strongly.

Except that I don't think trade should be the threat. Getting the ERob threatment should be the threat. If he's not in the shape expected of him, sit him at the end of the bench and leave him there. Badmouth him in the press at every opportunity and utterly destroy his trade value to the extent you can.

Unless and until he comes to Jesus and does what's best for the team.

Hopefully, this is a non-issue, and Eddy will start acting like a real live, adult, grown man.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I don't think this franchise is doomed whether Eddy is a part of it or not. Eddy's trade value will always be high no matter if Pax talks high of him or not. 

I'm sure since Pax has taken the GM's job he has talked to dozens of GM's about scenarios involving Eddy Curry. He probably has a good idea what Curry coudl get in a trade. He wouldnt threaten to move Curry and give him an ultimatum if he wasn't prepared to make the trade. 

Pax figures in his mind: 
1)I can move Eddy and Erob and get 2 guys in return i know will work out and are "my type of guys".
2)Or if Eddy wakes up and is the player Pax and skiles have always wanted then there is no point in moving him.

Either way Pax has Options and wont let Eddy coast through the year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>Fizer Fanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> "All these false reports are just making me mad that I've got to put up with this kind of stuff from people, including my own team. I've never badmouthed the team by saying, 'I don't like the coach or the management and don't want to play for the Bulls.' This is where I want to be for the rest of my career, but people are trying to push me away. But this is my home, and this is where I want to stay.''
> ...


nice words... but the bottom line is that he's still 305.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> He couldn't stress enough how much he values players who love the game and will continue to work at their game.
> 
> He said some very interesting things about Eddy. He said he doesn't know what Eddy thinks about the game. His players must love the game and he's not sure Eddy does "yet". He's not going to be afraid to move him and just b/c he's he's a big Center, that doesn't mean a whole lot to him. He just wants to bring in the players that will work their arse off to get better and improve. He just couldn't stress enough about how he will bring in the right players if they don't have this attitude and he basically said he doesn't see it in Eddy right now. Listening to him, you can tell he's not going to just be satisfied with Eddy being an above average C (like some people seem to be ok with) if he's not constantly working on his game.
> ...


Paxson's not kidding. He said it at the end of the season. He told both Eddy and Tyson that their future with the Bulls would be directly tied to the amount of work they put in over the summer. Chandler took Paxson seriously and reports suggest that he's exceeded their expectations. Curry, like most kids, is probing and testing to see if the authority figures in his life mean what they say. Parents will understand what I'm talking about.

When Pax talks about being uncertain if Curry loves the game "yet," he even sounds like a Dad. Most fathers hope and pray that one day their son gets it...that the lightbulb goes on and that whatever was an issue is an issue no longer. But lurking in the back of the father's mind is the realization that no matter how hard you try to persuade, sometimes all you have left as a motivational tool is to lay down the law and issue an ultimatum.

And here's the tough part. If you've got more than one child and you issue one of them an ultimatum, you'd better carry through with it or all your other children will start to test your resolve.

Paxson and Skiles have made themselves very clear to everyone on the team concerning the issues of attitude and work ethic. Curry, for whatever reason, whether it's intentional or unintentional, is testing their resolve.

As such, they really have no choice. If they're going to maintain control of the other players they have to keep their word. Curry had better take Paxson seriously or by the end of September Eddy will be kissing his family goodbye while he packs up to move to his new NBA city.

And don't think Paxson won't have a number of deals lined up and ready to go should Curry fail to meet his objectives. You can count on a number of center-starved teams to line up ready to take Curry off the Bulls hands. The competition between teams that want to trade for him should ensure that Paxson will have several quality trade packages to choose from.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Getting a ticket out of Chicago isn't necessarily a threat. A heck of a lot of players would likely welcome a trade, given the current losing tradition.

The best threat is the embarassment and damage to reputation of getting benched on a basement-dwelling team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Getting a ticket out of Chicago isn't necessarily a threat. A heck of a lot of players would likely welcome a trade, given the current losing tradition.
> 
> The best threat is the embarassment and damage to reputation of getting benched on a basement-dwelling team.


You can't win this battle.

They don't have to act like men... they are professional athletes with a killer CBA behind them.

This tactic didn't work with EROB, and we're getting nothing out of him. This tactic didn't work with Crawford, and we dumped him for nothing. It won't work on Curry. He knows he's going to get paid next year and he knows some team will pay him in the future.

His words are meaningless... he's just learning to say the right things.

This hard-line attitude does not work in the current NBA. They are going to destroy the franchise and we'll be left with Linton Johnson, Pargo and Shiley. They will bust their *** for Pax and Skiles.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not destroying his trade value, he's destroying his RFA value. On one hand, a team might be interested in a big young center with offensive skills. On the other, they might be scared off by having a big overweight young center who doesn't have heart.
> ...


Perhaps... but then they would have resigned crawford if this was their true plan of attack w/ these guys.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> his threat to ship curry out is absolutely meaningless to curry. he's getting paid this season either way and will get a large payday from a team no matter what.


kukoc4ever, I think you might be underestimating how close Eddy is with his immediate family. And believe me, from personal observation, the bonds between Eddy, his parents and his sister are very, very strong. They are _extremely_ protective of him. No matter what he may think of Paxson or Skiles or Reinsdorf for that matter, the last thing he wants is to be seperated from his family. Personally, as much as they love him, IMHO he really needs to break away from the homefront and grow up. They coddle him and hover around him way too much for a 21 year old.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> kukoc4ever, I think you might be underestimating how close Eddy is with his immediate family. And believe me, from personal observation, the bonds between Eddy, his parents and his sister are very, very strong. They are _extremely_ protective of him. No matter what he may think of Paxson or Skiles or Reinsdorf for that matter, the last thing he wants is to be seperated from his family. Personally, as much as they love him, IMHO he really needs to break away from the homefront and grow up. They coddle him and hover around him way too much for a 21 year old.



He'll move his family to the nice new mansion he'll buy in Memphis or Orlando or where ever he'll play next.

You can't play hard ball with these guys. The workers have a lot of power in this dynamic. The supply of people like Eddy Curry is miniscule.

You may be happy that Crawford is gone. The punk didn't "win." But the Bulls are worse off.

You may be happy that Curry will be gone when he does not bend to the will of Pax and Skiles. He won't "win" in your eyes either. And once again, the Bulls will be worse off.

The end result of this game Pax is playing is some initially good PR, and a very, very bad basketball team with little hope of improvement.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You can't win this battle.
> ...


:clap: 

Five freaking stars.

I don't know, I'm one of those weirdos who wants a winning team. I pretty much don't give a rat's *** if our guys make their beds and say "may I be excused?" before leaving the dinner table.

My membership in FJ's "Get Edward Curry Some Support for His Man Breasts" club shows you I am just as disgusted with him as I am everyone else. But for God's sake, if Paxson and Skiles want to get into the business of micromolding young minds, they should teach high school or open a daycare.

A common defense I've read of those who support what Paxson and Skiles are doing is, "Look at the Pistons. A team whose sum is greater than the whole of its parts." Well, check out this very interesting quote from Joe Dumars, given back in 2002 when he was just starting to get things rolling:

"It is easy to make statements after the fact, but with God as my witness, I was telling everybody last summer that I want to bring in guys with an edge and with something to prove," Dumars says. "I don't mind having rebels, but they just have to have a cause. I don't need a rebel without a cause. And when I say a rebel, I don't mean they are bad guys. I just mean they have an edge to them, they are all playing for a legitimate cause."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_17_226/ai_95206292

Wow . . . imagine that. Judging guys on RESULTS, not process, not this "play the game the right way" bull****. 

It seems Dumars has gotten much better results with his "get it done when it counts, and I don't care about the rest" approach than Paxskiles is with their "I can't see my reflection in your shoes" one.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Shaq talked about how Riley enforces a 10% body fat max for permimeter players and a 14 or 15% max for post players. He said that he will told Pat that he would oblige by these standards.

Now if one organziation can tell Shaq what he needs to weight, we can darn well tell Curry.

p.s. Pax, just a bit of advise, it will make you sound cooler if you use body fat % rather than a certain poundage.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

These statements by Pax are definitely a gamble, but a gamble with a potentially excellent payoff.

He has laid down the law for Eddy and delivered an ultimatum. Now Eddy can either fold and quit right now, or get after it. He knows what's at stake. My guess is that he will get after it, even if it takes some prodding by those around him.

And when he succeeds, Pax will very publicly commend Eddy for all the hard work he's put in, etc. and I think that achieving a goal like that will give Eddy a certain sense of confidence going forward.

I give Paxson a lot of credit. He understands what leadership is. He knows how important goal setting is because it gives his players something to shoot for and when they experience success it most definitely builds their desire for success in the future. Too often in the NBA players just coast through their careers, happy to pick up a paycheck with little motivation for improvement. If Paxson can instill this motivation in his players, the Bulls will have a huge leg up on the rest of the league.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> It seems Dumars has gotten much better results with his "get it done when it counts, and I don't care about the rest" approach than Paxskiles is with their "I can't see my reflection in your shoes" one.


Did Dumars have to babysit any guys as young as Crawford and Curry? I don't think so. 

Do you think Pax will be pulling this stuff in the media in 2 years once he has got guys that play his way. I don't think so.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Now that the Bulls have chosen this path, I think Kismet is dead on that they have to follow through. Otherwise, they might as well fire Paxson and Skiles right now. I don't think Detroit is the model they are following; I think it is Utah and the Utah "my way or the highway" model would fit Chicago well if they can pull it off.

Right now, Eddy Curry is a very bad NBA basketball player who will not get much better unless he alters his approach to the game. ScottMay, you miss the whole point in your discussion of Dumars. The problem with Eddy is that he has no edge, that he isn't a rebel. Heck, I bet Paxson would be thrilled if Curry came in and told him (and Skiles) that they were a--holes. If Curry doesn't change, losing him won't be of much consequence. So what is there to lose by riding him?

I guess that Paxson is running a risk of running down Curry's trade value if things don't work out, but I agree with Kismet that that risk is not that great. Curry is too young and too talented and there will always be a GM out there who thinks he has the answer. So Paxson has the opportunity to ride Curry and ride him hard and see what happens. If it works, he has pulled off a minor miracle and maybe the Bulls end up with a franchise player. If not, someone else will pay dearly for their shot at reforming Curry. In my opinion, this is a win-win situation.

I disagree strongly that Paxson is looking to build a team of boy scouts. He was flirting with Kobe Bryant for chrissakes, a pretty disgusting human being if you ask me. He wants guys who are competitive and who are going do what it takes to bring a winner to Chicago.

There are other strategies that Paxson could have chosen, but I think he has already passed that fork in the road and there is no turning back now. The road he is on is going to bring him to paradise or lead him over a cliff. It is too early to tell which.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> "It is easy to make statements after the fact, but with God as my witness, I was telling everybody last summer that I want to bring in guys with an *edge* and with something to prove," Dumars says. "I don't mind having rebels, but they just have to have a cause. I don't need a rebel without a cause. And when I say a rebel, I don't mean they are bad guys. I just mean they have an *edge* to them, they are all playing for a legitimate cause."
> 
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_17_226/ai_95206292


Scott, do you think Eddy's got that edge Dumars was referring to?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Did Dumars have to babysit any guys as young as Crawford and Curry? I don't think so.
> ...


What about ERob? 

When healthy, this guy does nothing but produce. Paul Silas, hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to discipline, had absolutely no problem with the guy. 

Paxskiles, on the other hand, gets miffed that he's not living in the gym after practices and games and benches him on the heels of a stretch where he played phenomenally well.

I don't know about anyone else, but I never reacted well to public humilation: not when I was a kid, (particularly) not when I was Eddy's age, and not now. This all should be handled behind closed doors and in a far more professional manner than it has been.

Of course, when it's all just a prelude to building up a series of excuses not to re-sign the guy, I guess it makes perfect sense to have the dirty laundry out in the open for everyone to see.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> A common defense I've read of those who support what Paxson and Skiles are doing is, "Look at the Pistons. A team whose sum is greater than the whole of its parts." Well, check out this very interesting quote from Joe Dumars, given back in 2002 when he was just starting to get things rolling:
> ...


Where in this magical quote that you have does Dumars ever state he's judging guys on results? He want's guys that care about the game. He wants guys with an edge, with something to prove because you know what? - when you get those guys, they're going to work hard to achieve their goals. Can you honestly sit there and say that Eddy Curry fits that mold? Wasn't Pax quoted just the other day stating that he wanted guys that worked hard. Guys that _liked_ playing the game. Guys that want to improve. Isn't that just what Dumars said above, in different words?

I know you're anti-Pax, but didn't you just help to support the pro-Pax folks with the above citation? The whole point of this thread is that Curry has no edge. No desire. Are you going to tell me that Eddy Curry is a Dumars-type player?


----------



## Agent911 (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Wow . . . imagine that. Judging guys on RESULTS, not process, not this "play the game the right way" bull****.
> 
> It seems Dumars has gotten much better results with his "get it done when it counts, and I don't care about the rest" approach than Paxskiles is with their "I can't see my reflection in your shoes" one.


I think you are completely mis-using Dumars' quote here. Dumars and Pax ARE saying the same "play the right way" message: with intensity, focus, and heart on the court. 

If Eddy GOT results, Pax wouldn't feel the need to tell him to exercise in the off season and pull up his pants. 

If ERob was a benefit to the team, Pax wouldn't care if he showed up early or not.

These guys are not Iverson, complaining off the court but an All-Star on the floor. They are sucking, sucking, sucking every day. They show neither heart nor effort. That is not rebellion, that is slackdom. 

Dumars would put up with that less than Paxson. I'm sure the order of preference for the both of them is:
1. Get it done on the court.
2. Failing that, show me you're working to improve to make #1 happen.
3. Failing that, hit the bricks.

Dumars has some #1 guys. Paxson has a team of 2s and 3s.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Fun discussion guys. But what the hell are we all doing in front of a computer on a Friday night?

And what the hell am I doing agreeing with Kismet? The apocalypse must be upon us.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Do you think "my way or the highway" wins a title in the NBA? 

The only time Utah was close to winning a title was when they had two hall-of-famers.... Malone and Stockton. It was more the talent than the system.

Last season in Utah was impressive... but in the end they didn't make the playoffs. It was fun to watch, but the end result was not what you want at the end of the day.





> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Now that the Bulls have chosen this path, I think Kismet is dead on that they have to follow through. Otherwise, they might as well fire Paxson and Skiles right now. I don't think Detroit is the model they are following; I think it is Utah and the Utah "my way or the highway" model would fit Chicago well if they can pull it off.
> 
> Right now, Eddy Curry is a very bad NBA basketball player who will not get much better unless he alters his approach to the game. ScottMay, you miss the whole point in your discussion of Dumars. The problem with Eddy is that he has no edge, that he isn't a rebel. Heck, I bet Paxson would be thrilled if Curry came in and told him (and Skiles) that they were a--holes. If Curry doesn't change, losing him won't be of much consequence. So what is there to lose by riding him?
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Fun discussion guys. But what the hell are we all doing in front of a computer on a Friday night?
> 
> And what the hell am I doing agreeing with Kismet? The apocalypse must be upon us.


I'm not doing my homework!  Or kinda half doing it and half not doing it.

Maybe you can help me!  Its an econ class!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Shaq talked about how Riley enforces a 10% body fat max for permimeter players and a 14 or 15% max for post players. He said that he will told Pat that he would oblige by these standards.
> 
> Now if one organziation can tell Shaq what he needs to weight, we can darn well tell Curry.
> ...


Shaq has something to prove to himself. He wants to win a title without Kobe.

He would be equally motivated on any other team in the league.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Do you think "my way or the highway" wins a title in the NBA?
> 
> The only time Utah was close to winning a title was when they had two hall-of-famers.... Malone and Stockton. It was more the talent than the system.
> ...


Well, Curry with an edge plus Hinrich could be a poor man's Malone and Stockton. And Chandler, Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni could be a much more talented supporting cast than Utah ever had.

And no, I can't help you with your homework. I need to prepare some homework for my own class.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Do you think "my way or the highway" wins a title in the NBA?
> 
> The only time Utah was close to winning a title was when they had two hall-of-famers.... Malone and Stockton. It was more the talent than the system.
> ...


I'm not understanding some of these quotes. Utah was the epitome of a less talented team playing the game the right way and playing the game hard. All the great pundits were spelling the mighty fall of Sloan and the Jazz with the departure of Stockton and Malone. All they did was take a collection of not so talented players and they played hard. They would have made the playoff too if it weren't for Harperings' injury. One of the main reasons they were fun to watch was because they played the game the right way - with an edge (there's that word again).

Now, imagine what a really talented team of players who played like that could do? I'm thinking they're NBA title contenders.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I dont think eddy will be a Bull longterm whether he gets to 285 or not .He is not gonna stay and play for pax when hes on the radio ripping him a new one in the media .

I think eddy gets to 285 and then when the season starts and he plays well he will start dropping hints about testing the market and perhaps playing elsewhere .Curry is gone at the deadline IMO.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Scott, do you think Eddy's got that edge Dumars was referring to?


That wasn't my gist.

My point is that Dumars doesn't care where you came from, what you wear, or how you talk to your elders. He just cares about what goes on between the lines. 

Eddy has no fire whatsoever, but to light one by publicly humiliating him isn't a last resort, it's a guaranteed failure.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Now that the Bulls have chosen this path, I think Kismet is dead on that they have to follow through. Otherwise, they might as well fire Paxson and Skiles right now. I don't think Detroit is the model they are following; I think it is Utah and the Utah "my way or the highway" model would fit Chicago well if they can pull it off.
> 
> Right now, Eddy Curry is a very bad NBA basketball player who will not get much better unless he alters his approach to the game. ScottMay, you miss the whole point in your discussion of Dumars. The problem with Eddy is that he has no edge, that he isn't a rebel. Heck, I bet Paxson would be thrilled if Curry came in and told him (and Skiles) that they were a--holes. If Curry doesn't change, losing him won't be of much consequence. So what is there to lose by riding him?
> ...


Good post, Dan...and not just because you agreed with me.

Eddy doesn't owe it to anybody else but himself to be all he can be. He has the world at his fingertips, but he's fumbling it away big time. Some time ago Paxson was talking about entering into contract negotiations with Curry with the intention of signing him to a long term extension. He's already blown that opportunity. And that astounds me. Can you imagine letting up to $90 million slip away because you couldn't motivate yourself enough to go to the gym and work out?

Lets look at this from a different angle. He's just 21 now and is having trouble maintaining his condition. How difficult do you think it will be for him to prepare for each season as he gets older? And if you do sign him to a long term max contract, what's his motivation to keep from turning into a complete slob? If you doubt it can happen, just take a look at Shawn Kemp's career.

I don't blame Paxson at all for presenting Curry with one final ultimatum. An Eddy Curry playing up to his ability this season can make the Bulls a legitimate playoff contender. An unmotivated, happy to be slightly above average Curry won't take the Bulls any farther than any other average center.

You know, this evening I watched the Olympic team play on ESPN. There were guys like James, Anthony, Wade, Stoudemire and Boozer running around on the basketball court. If Curry had the passion for the game that those very young players have he'd be out there starring for the US team right now. He's that gifted. But as it is he's the classic example of an underachiever who could slide into mediocrity at any time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If you had a group of very talented guys playing that way it would be something to see.

We won’t get Curry to play that way by public humiliation. 

In the end, you have to extend your players to long-term guaranteed contracts. At this point, “my way or the highway” does not mean much anymore unless it comes from within the player.

I’ve always said that to make the NBA better they have to get rid of the guaranteed contract. This is one of the reasons why, IMO.





> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not understanding some of these quotes. Utah was the epitome of a less talented team playing the game the right way and playing the game hard. All the great pundits were spelling the mighty fall of Sloan and the Jazz with the departure of Stockton and Malone. All they did was take a collection of not so talented players and they played hard. They would have made the playoff too if it weren't for Harperings' injury. One of the main reasons they were fun to watch was because they played the game the right way - with an edge (there's that word again).
> ...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Everyone's fixating on the "edge" and "rebel" portions of the Dumars quote I posted. It may have been a bad example because it's in reference to a player of ours who has no edge, but again, what I was most interested in was Dumars's not particularly caring where a guy came from, what motivates him, and all that other jazz. 

Chauncey Billups took a lot of the same heat a guy like Curry does, even if being overweight wasn't his specific "issue". He kicked around from team to team, always getting tagged as a billion-dollar talent with a ten-cent head. 

He goes to Detroit and bang--he becomes a top-5 point guard (and frankly, when he's on, I'd rather have him than the Marburys and Nashes of the world).

So what happened? Likely a combination of things--he was placed in an environment where he was surrounded by good players and he probably finally "got it". 

My point in relation to Paxskiles is that the approach they're taking with Curry is just not how business is done at the NBA level. It's a Bobby Knight, Woody Hayes-esque college approach. I'm not saying that treating Eddy like an adult would have any better of a chance of working, but I am saying the tack they've chosen has NO chance.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I dont think eddy will be a Bull longterm whether he gets to 285 or not .He is not gonna stay and play for pax when hes on the radio ripping him a new one in the media .
> 
> I think eddy gets to 285 and then when the season starts and he plays well he will start dropping hints about testing the market and perhaps playing elsewhere .Curry is gone at the deadline IMO.



I think he'll crumble during the training (boot?) camp regimen and possibly demand a trade. But yes, he'll be dealt by the deadline.



It's a billion to one shot that EC becomes an Alonzo Mourning type overnight! 

:laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I disagree strongly that Paxson is looking to build a team of boy scouts. He was flirting with Kobe Bryant for chrissakes, a pretty disgusting human being if you ask me. He wants guys who are competitive and who are going do what it takes to bring a winner to Chicago.


Speaking of red herrings :grinning: , now that the dust has settled, there's no question in my mind that Kobe's granting the Knicks, the Bulls, and maybe even the Clippers was nothing more than his twisted way of grandstanding and trying to upstage Shaq. I know the Reinsdorf supporters point to the fact that Kobe even picked up the phone as indication of a sea change in how we're perceived around the league, but I prefer to chalk it up to Kobe's flair for the dramatic.


----------



## Critic (Jun 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Getting a ticket out of Chicago isn't necessarily a threat. A heck of a lot of players would likely welcome a trade, given the current losing tradition.


Yeah sure they would welcome a trade. You know why...they are born LOSERS


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Good post, Dan...and not just because you agreed with me.
> 
> Eddy doesn't owe it to anybody else but himself to be all he can be. He has the world at his fingertips, but he's fumbling it away big time. Some time ago Paxson was talking about entering into contract negotiations with Curry with the intention of signing him to a long term extension. He's already blown that opportunity. And that astounds me. Can you imagine letting up to $90 million slip away because you couldn't motivate yourself enough to go to the gym and work out?
> ...


But Eddy's whole life has been full of times where he has "gotten the $90 million" without trying. Why would this be any different?

I don't think Eddy is that close to leading the Bulls to the playoffs. I think he needs at least another season where he learns how to pass. Until then I think the best he can do on a consisten basis is hold his own out there on the court. That is one danger in all of this talk. Even if Eddy does adopt a new attitude, I don't think he will be a huge asset on the court this season and I hope folks are prepared for that. He has lost time he needs to make up for.

One other thing. Everything you say about Curry and long-term contracts has to keep Paxson awake at night. But I don't think money motivates Curry, so maybe it won't matter. Perhaps continually having a group of teammates around him that pushes and prods him to be better will be something that Curry will need his whole career. That might explain part of the reason why Crawford had to go. He wasn't going to be there in that way for Curry.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Fun discussion guys. But what the hell are we all doing in front of a computer on a Friday night?
> 
> And what the hell am I doing agreeing with Kismet? The apocalypse must be upon us.


My kid took an accidental pre-dinner nap and is having a tough time sleeping, my wife is working an overnight shift at the hospital, and I swear I just looked up and saw Davis Love III on "American Chopper," which can't possibly be real.

I'm gonna turn off the computer now.


----------



## Critic (Jun 19, 2003)

One thing I want to say about Eddy Curry...

Is that...if you were as talented and as huge as he is...

Why would u sacrifice your career by eating like crap and not doing the necessary work in the off season to get fitter and better.

Gees...players today recieve millions of dollars and yet almost all of them wouldnt bother hiring personal trainers and chef's to keep them healthy and fitter. It is afterall not just Eddy in todays league! The players of yesteryear would be laughing at the way alot of these kids conduct their careers.

Look at what Lamar Odom did last year. He finally got serious!Hired a trainer, started eating well and BAMMM...he has a dominating career best season!

Dammit Eddy...get your head out of your a** and work your butt off. This is your career! Do you want to do your talent justice and go down as a solid 10 year veteran who worked harder than most...or a lazy bum who never fulfilled his enormous potential?

I'll tell u. Its sad to see that the days of the really hard workers in the NBA are over. I'd love to see some of the workmanlike players of years gone past...come in and teach these kids a lesson about toughness.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Did Dumars have to babysit any guys as young as Crawford and Curry? I don't think so.


DARKO...ever heard of him, he tuned 19 about 7 weeks ago , T.prince is younger than JC , he has also taken in such cases as rodney white.

Dumars doesn't care , he doesn't play nursemaid , but he will develop a young player for a pivotal role if that player shows he is ready. 

note: Jc never needed to be babysitted , he unlike curry always came from his summertime in shape.

every player is different and develop in their own time curry will always be a limited player until he learns how to pass until then he is just a finisher of plays and the bulls cant run their offense through him, i am of the mind he will take about 3 years to develop the basketball knowledge to be effective in this type of enviroment


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Again, I post to ask something very important: why are half the threads that are most responded to misspelled ?!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> DARKO...ever heard of him, he tuned 19 about 7 weeks ago , T.prince is younger than JC , he has also taken in such cases as rodney white.
> ...


Dumars had his CONTENDING team in place when he got Darko. As far as making Detroit a champion, Darko contributed nada.

Prince played all 4 years of college and then competed for his time on a very good team. again, much different. 

Dumars had a playoff caliber team without have to depend on reaching youngsters that were given everything without proving anything on a college or NBA court.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Dumars had his CONTENDING team in place when he got Darko. As far as making Detroit a champion, Darko contributed nada.
> ...


you didn't say all that before , you merely asked if dumars had to babysit players as young as JC and curry .

but so what whose fault is it that the bulls are overelying on players too young and or inexperienced for the job.

its not me, and its not you, its not even krause because he never left them to do it by themselves under him they always had a safety net., neither one of us traded rose or donyell forcing an out of shape kid into being a focal point even though he was struggling at the time. , I'll ask again how could paxson make a trade like that and not know curry was that out of shape , its not like curry was playing well at the time.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> you didn't say all that before , you merely asked if dumars had to babysit players as young as JC and curry .


Everyone else understood the point.  



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> its not me, and its not you, its not even krause because he never left them to do it by themselves under him they always had a safety net., neither one of us traded rose or donyell forcing an out of shape kid into being a focal point even though he was struggling at the time. , I'll ask again how could paxson make a trade like that and not know curry was that out of shape , its not like curry was playing well at the time.


Krause did just a worse a job. Clearly, he did not even know what he had in guys like Miller or Artest. Looks like Paxson found out as best he could as to what he had in Crawford and is going to find out what he has in Curry.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> You may be happy that Crawford is gone. The punk didn't "win." But the Bulls are worse off.


Only in the short-term.

Short-term thinkers never win


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Only in the short-term.
> ...


PG Crawford
SG XXXXXX
SF Artest
PF Brand
C Miller

I agree with you.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Everyone else understood the point.
> ...


Wow, I disagree with this statement. Krause at least received what was considered an asset at the time in Jalen Rose.

Pax got NOTHING for Crawford.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Krause left a 30 win team that was improving and was everyone's pick for a team with a great future .

paxson now has a team with only 2 out 15 players from that team , they are older , but not as good and the company line is that they have to get cap space , but not enough oddly enough to get any free agents because they wont be under the cap , and to you he has done a better job, your judgement is weak , like clock radio speakers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow, I disagree with this statement. Krause at least received what was considered an asset at the time in Jalen Rose.
> ...


We would have been better off getting nothing for Artest and Miller than Jalen Rose.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> We would have been better off getting nothing for Artest and Miller than Jalen Rose.


You are correct... but at the time Rose was considered an asset.

EDIT: Point being that he did know that Artest and Miller were talented. I believe he was forced into a corner by Artest's looninees and their desperate need for a veteran "star."


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> We would have been better off getting nothing for Artest and Miller than Jalen Rose.


why is that the only full season with him was the most successful (relative term)season the bulls have had since Mj.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You are correct... but at the time Rose was considered an asset.


What a horrible mistake! Worth getting canned for....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What a horrible mistake! Worth getting canned for....


I don't want to turn this into a debate about Krause. 

Once again, I'll say that at the time, Rose was considered to be an asset, which is better than nothing.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>
> The most interesting thing was that he said him, Skiles, and Eddy sat down April 16th and talked about what they expect of him and they want him in camp at 285. And he said he's got 7 weeks to do that. He weight in at 305 the other day supposively.


He also said that the Bulls weren't complaining about him, and that the media took his weight out of context.

Paxson said that at the end of last season Eddy weighed 297. He said his weight never got to 320. He also said that he was surprised to here Eddy defend himself by saying he was 314 or 315, and Paxson said he wasn't aware he had gotten this high. Eddy currently weighs is 305, but doesn't feel like Eddy "gets" it yet the Tyson does. He didn't give the impression that he wasn't working out, just not as hard as Paxson wanted, or whether it was laziness (not going to practice) or effort (at practice)

Therefore, he currently is 8 pounds over what he was to end last season (which was probably when he was in the best shape of his life). Might it be that Eddy is coming into this season in better shape than the previous 3? (just saying that to be contrarian, but it could very well be valid).

He said that Tyson is having a terrific offseason and that there should be no worries about his back to start the season.





> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>And if he's not at 285 by the time that 7 weeks rolls around, Pax said he will NOT be playing for the Chicago Bulls. He said that flat out.


Where did you get this impression?


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

I didn't read this whole thread but I did hear part of the interview and the most interesting quote from Paxson was this:

"Eddy Curry will not play for the Chicago Bulls unless he gets down to 185"


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Paxson has asked center Eddy Curry to report to training camp at 285 pounds and said the organization "hasn't lost confidence in him." Curry is working out at Hoops The Gym.

"I've received several calls from teams, but I'm not going to give up size easily," Paxson said. "He does have incentive in that this is a contract year for him."*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...6bulls,1,1394945.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I could not disagree more strongly.
> ...


Tom, I seriously disagree here.

Pax is obviously not cut out for this job, and this display of bluster is another example.

What you're saying above, it's a passionate response. It's a fan's response. I daresay it's an understandable response given what a dope Eddy's been acting.

However, it's completely the wrong response for a professional GM who's running a team. A GM can't afford to be emotional, and he can't afford to make decisions like this. By even embarking down that road, Pax is showing his foolishness.

Worst of all, it's just plain unprofessional, like a lot of stuff that Paxson has done. Publically calling out and belittling players, even if they deserve it, is a ridiculously counterproductive move. Under what bizarro world ethos does it make sense to run down the trade value of a player you might want to trade?

And perhaps more generally, it's just blatantly freaking hypocritical. Pax a good part of early last season complaining about how players need to "keep it in the house" and "keep it professional". He then followed that up with a much publicized, unprofessional, and highly personal toungue-lashing of Jamal and Eddy last year. A day or two ago, he took exception to "Jamal", on the way out of town, saying he sometimes felt "unappreciated". Well, John, you ****ing dolt, if you don't like players saying stuff like that, maybe you should set an example and not publically rip them like you did not a day later to Eddy.

It's really that simple. Despite the lip service and the hurt feelings when such things are directed back at him, Paxson has repeatedly called out his guys. That's not how you build a team and that's not how you build respect. Perhaps Pax simply doesn't care about that because they're not "his" guys. Well, ok, I think that's foolish, but if you're going to take that attitude, don't wait around waiting for ****ing blood to come from a stone, trade the guys instead of hoping that men in their 20s suddenly change an ethos they've spent a lifetime developing. It ain't gonna happen.

But above all, jeez, don't be such a douche about it. Don't get up and complain about someone calling out the organization (albeit in a pretty mild and fairly accurate way) and then turn around and publically diss one of your employees a couple days later. 

I mean come on dude, that's just manifestly the wrong thing to do. And that's not even getting to the point of considering the frightening ramifications his foolish statements have for actually dealing with Curry and getting some value for him.

What team is going to offer something good for a guy who's manager trashes him?

What are Curry's incentives to come in in shape for a guy who trashes him. Hell, it's almost forseeable that Curry gives a big KFC-laden **** you to Paxson and purposely shows up at 300. He says "trade me, I dare you". If we do, we get jack **** in value for him. If we don't.... we get jack ****.

Nice way to paint yourself into another corner. I'll say this, the utter ridiculousness of this episide makes trading away our best player for non-existent cap relief and the opportunity to sign/trade for more over-the-hill jump shooters look positively brilliant by comparison. Way to go Pax.

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

IN









Here's a simple brain teaser for everyone


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Personally, as much as they love him, IMHO he really needs to break away from the homefront and grow up. They coddle him and hover around him way too much for a 21 year old.


Then freaking do it! If that's the deal, I personally tend to believe it is, then _build_ the kids value and move him. Don't tear it down.

I mean, I'm agreeing with you 100% here. But if one reaches this belief, one really must follow it to its logical conclusion.

Pax, on the other hand, seems to have come to this conclusion and then concluded that he really hopes he's wrong, and if he just gives the kid another toungue-lashing, he'll make him change his ways.

It ain't going to happen. Making decisions based on hope that flies in the face of sound and considered thought is the essence of foolishness.

Hell, next thing I'll hear is that they're going to rely on ERob to come in and be a big-time contributor next year. Oh wait... I already did hear that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Now that the Bulls have chosen this path, I think Kismet is dead on that they have to follow through. Otherwise, they might as well fire Paxson and Skiles right now. I don't think Detroit is the model they are following; I think it is Utah and the Utah "my way or the highway" model would fit Chicago well if they can pull it off.
> 
> Right now, Eddy Curry is a very bad NBA basketball player who will not get much better unless he alters his approach to the game. ScottMay, you miss the whole point in your discussion of Dumars. The problem with Eddy is that he has no edge, that he isn't a rebel. Heck, I bet Paxson would be thrilled if Curry came in and told him (and Skiles) that they were a--holes. If Curry doesn't change, losing him won't be of much consequence. So what is there to lose by riding him?


From my perspective, publically taking cheapshots at one of your own has a cost.

Just like the Corie Blount thing, it sends a message. Now, Eddy may well (and in my personal opinion does) "deserve" it, but let me throw the question back to you- what would there be to lose by riding him privately rather than through the radio?

Wouldn't that be the more professional thing to do? 

Wouldn't that keep more options open?



> I guess that Paxson is running a risk of running down Curry's trade value if things don't work out, but I agree with Kismet that that risk is not that great. Curry is too young and too talented and there will always be a GM out there who thinks he has the answer. So Paxson has the opportunity to ride Curry and ride him hard and see what happens. If it works, he has pulled off a minor miracle and maybe the Bulls end up with a franchise player. If not, someone else will pay dearly for their shot at reforming Curry. In my opinion, this is a win-win situation.


Just in your general estimation, is Curry worth more in trade or less than he was last summer? How much will he be worth if he comes in at 305lbs and looks like a sloth to start the season?

I guess I disagree with you and Kismet here. Will some GM give up something? Yeah, probably. Will it be what we could have gotten when we first took a hard look and concluded that Eddy doesn't have personality to excel? Probably not. Do we lose something by having our GM go on the radio and get in a pissing match? Yep, that doesn't seem to smart to me at all.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I suspect that all of the GMs in the league know the whole Eddy Curry story due to his working with Grover. Grover must have connections with just about everyone in the league.

Pax should only have done this if it was his last resort. Maybe it is.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Hey, Mike...did your wife throw you out of the house with the laptop? Thank God for wireless technology, huh.

I see a lot of parenting going on here with Pax. As a father of both a high school and a college student, I have a pretty good idea of what he's up to.

And for those of you who don't believe "getting it" can sometimes seem to happen overnight with a young person, think again. I've had more than a few instances with both of my kids where I was convinced I was butting my head up against an impenetrable wall. Then later on, sometimes days, weeks and occasionally months later, my son or daughter will approach me and admit that I was right and what was once a major bone of contention is no longer an issue.

Curry's not much older than my daughter. And I'm here to tell you that it's still possible that young man will suddenly come to the realization that there's a right way to go about your business and his way isn't it. Curry's got one more year to play for the Bulls before both sides have to decide his long term worth. So, as any parent would do while they still have some semblance of control, you pull out all the stops. You give it your best shot. But whatever you do you never let them think you've quit on them.

There's a time when negotiating and persuading as techniques have to come to an end and the consequences of continued misbehavior have to be spelled out. That's not only being fair---its telling the young person you care enough to stay involved even if it means making some very tough choices.

That's the process Paxson is engaged in with Curry right now. It may work, it may not. But like any responsible dad, as long as you've still got them living under your roof, you've got to try everything possible to get that young person to listen and to think things through.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Hey, Mike...did your wife throw you out of the house with the laptop? Thank God for wireless technology, huh.


No, but that's a pretty uncool road for you to go down. :no:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Just curious, but how many of you have heard the interview? I just caught a replay this afternoon and Pax didn't say Curry will be traded if he doesn't get down to 285. He said Curry will not practice or play for Skiles until he does so. Running by himself on the side, whatever it takes, but he would not play for Skiles until he reaches that weight that he agreed to.

When the Wise guys asked Pax about trading Eddy and whether he would do it, he wasn't definitive about anything other than he would have no problem pulling the trigger. Didn't say anything about trading Eddy if he can't get his weight under control within the next 7 weeks.

OT, but Pax said we will absolutely love Nocioni. Something about we have never seen a player that plays harder than him. He also expects Gordon and Deng to have very good rookie years. Hinrich's conditioning blows everyone away. Seemed very, very high on Tyson and even said once that Eddy should look to Tyson and see what he's doing.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Pax also talked about the Jamal trade and it's pretty interesting to see his perspective. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Pax was very PC about Jamal, but stressed that signing him to 7 years would have left us hamstrung. Hard to argue with that IMO. 

The best part was when a caller threw Pax a question about how Jamal was mistreated in his tenure with the Bulls. Pax interrupted immediately with "How was Jamal mistreated???" Caller pointed out the obvious disrespect of drafting JWill, Kirk, and Gordon knowing that Jamal was on board. Pax only laughed it off and mentioned how every year Krause brought someone else to take his job. Also talked about how in the everyday world you have people trying or looking to take your job all the time. You respond by improving.

Made mention of how he's looking for a big guard, but I think that's old news.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> No, but that's a pretty uncool road for you to go down. :no:


Oh for crissakes, lighten up! I was just making light of the fact that you generated three straight posts...one to Dan, one to Tom, and one to me without any of us being online at the time. It just seemed like you were carrying on a discusion all by yourself. I thought it was funny. Your sphincter muscle is obviously puckered up way too much. Chill out!! :naughty:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh for crissakes, lighten up! I was just making light of the fact that you generated three straight posts...one to Dan, one to Tom, and one to me without any of us being online at the time. It just seemed like you were carrying on a discusion all by yourself. I thought it was funny. Your sphincter muscle is obviously puckered up way too much. Chill out!! :naughty:


Whatever... if you want to talk basketball, why don't you respond to the post rather than trotting out stuff about people and their wives.

In the meantime, I'll be spending more time with her and less time here. That way it'll be easier to avoid the substance of what I was saying in the first place. :sigh:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Unnecessary. Stick to basketball. - MikeDC


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*My take on Eddy Curry*

There's nothing to stress about to me. Either one of two things will happen:

1. He'll be up to Pax's specifications and we'll be good

2. He won't and we can just renounce him and overpay for a Sam Dalembert

Ultimately Pax is the judge and he's taking the same wait-and-see approach I am. When he makes his ruling I'll follow it because I trust Pax. I'm not like JC fans....If Pax caters to JC he's AIGHT, but if he doesn't then he's the worst GM ever.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Pax also talked about the Jamal trade and it's pretty interesting to see his perspective. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Pax was very PC about Jamal, but stressed that signing him to 7 years would have left us hamstrung. Hard to argue with that IMO.


Could someone explain to me how signing Jamal to a 7 year deal would leave us so much more hamstrung than signing him to a 6 year deal?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> I see a lot of parenting going on here with Pax. As a father of both a high school and a college student, I have a pretty good idea of what he's up to.
> 
> ...


I just don't think that's the right analogy at all. First, "trying everything" doesn't seem to me to go beyond all bounds of common sense. I daresay that no matter what my kids would do, I wouldn't go on the radio and publicly call them out, or undertake some equivalent form of public embarrassment. You might let your kid fail if he'll learn from it, but you don't go out and call him a failure to everyone.

Maybe I've just got a very different mentality about family (and team), but I was taught that "keep it in the family" is more than just lip service (which Paxson has employed when it has suited him and ignored when it suited him). No matter what's being said and done behind closed doors, I don't see how getting on the radio and blustering about he "won't be on the team if he doesn't shape up" falls withing the "acceptable" category.

Hey, I'm all for Paxson saying what he said... if he said it to Eddy. He said it to Eddy and a couple million other people, and that's not smart.

I also think there's a difference between a changing a guy's lifetime habits, when there are other, stronger forces reinforcing them, as seems to be necessary for Eddy, and the average thing that's a bone of contention with kids. Every kid, for example, might think they're "ready for sex" or "can handle smoking some weed" or whatever the crisis of the moment is. Some of them are, some of them aren't. That's part of growing up. Being an overwieght, impressionable kid with millions already in your pocket and a whole group of people who think they know best for you... that's not even in the same ballpark. Hell, that's not even the same game.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I could not disagree more strongly.
> ...



I agree and what in the Hell is wrong with a manager pushing his people? This happens everyday in everyway.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Tom, I seriously disagree here.
> ...




I think you are dead wrong. Pax criticizes the guys who dont do their job. He's the boss and thank God you're not b/c Eddie would always underachieve. Pax doesn't want to lose Eddie, he wants him to TRY. Just like Skiles said.."Eddie could get more rebounds if he jumped".

Read Kismet's post again and maybe you'll gain the tough-love perspective of a parent. Bottom line is EC has gotten by with minimal effort making millions for 3 years. It's time to pull out the stops and try some fear tactics with the lazy butt.

I have a question for you...

Would EC be an all-star if he worked like Hinrich (who was asked by his coach this summer to slow down on working so hard)?

If you answered yes to this question then please enlighten us on how you propose to motivate EC instead of blasting Pax.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I suspect that all of the GMs in the league know the whole Eddy Curry story due to his working with Grover. Grover must have connections with just about everyone in the league.
> 
> Pax should only have done this if it was his last resort. Maybe it is.


Grover stated that EC's workouts were "average". This is coming from a guy being PAID to train him. Many here blast Pax for his approach, but this organization has all reay coddled this lazy butt for 3 years. I agree with Pax's approach to motivate him. Maybe this approach will drive EC to take a "prove them Wrong" mentality and get it going. If EC continues to settle for a lack luster effort do we reallly want him here?

Bottom line: If he can't lay it on the line in a contract year he never will.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Curry's only 21. He has the "potential" to figure out that he has to play hard in his contract year.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Could someone explain to me how signing Jamal to a 7 year deal would leave us so much more hamstrung than signing him to a 6 year deal?


Mike, maybe I missed it, but who said it wouldn't have?

From the Bulls perspective, I don't think there was any difference whether it was 6 or 7 years. Either was too long. Seven was the number used because that's what the Knicks agreed to.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Wow! Quite a thread.

I heard most of the interview and I thought Paxson mishandled it. He sounded completely sincere, not emotional, just earnest and sincere. The interviewers wanted Eddy-directed controversy and Pax obliged by answering the questions too directly.

What Pax should have done is explain the team's policy on making weight. Something like, "each player is given a weight (or body fat%) they need to be at when camp starts. If they're over that weight, they will not practice with the team, but rather do extra weight-reducing training until they make their weight. This policy applies to Eddy Curry the same way it applies to the other players. In Eddy's case, his weight goal is 285 pounds or less."

Net, Pax showed his inexperience by talking directly about Curry.

The White Sox GM, Kenny Williams recently vented his spleen about his team's poor play. No names, just a lot about stuff that makes him crazy. As a listener, you're left wondering exactly who he's talking about, but that's the way the game needs to be played.

On the subject of Curry getting a big contract regardless of what he does, I'd like all you NBA savants to tell me which GMs would be willing to pay a max or near max contract to a player who, after 4 years in the league, has demonstrated that he doesn't take his job seriously? I would not pay all that much for the Eddy Curry I saw last season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> I think you are dead wrong. Pax criticizes the guys who dont do their job. He's the boss and thank God you're not b/c Eddie would always underachieve. Pax doesn't want to lose Eddie, he wants him to TRY. Just like Skiles said.."Eddie could get more rebounds if he jumped".
> 
> Read Kismet's post again and maybe you'll gain the tough-love perspective of a parent. Bottom line is EC has gotten by with minimal effort making millions for 3 years. It's time to pull out the stops and try some fear tactics with the lazy butt.


Like I said in response to Kismet... I have no problem with pulling out all the stops privately, but I don't see any benefit at all (quite the opposite) in going public. It's foolish and hypocritical. It was definitely a step too far for me to say Paxson was a douche, which is nothing but a pejorative, but I don't think this episode paints him in a favorable light at all.



> I have a question for you...
> 
> Would EC be an all-star if he worked like Hinrich (who was asked by his coach this summer to slow down on working so hard)?
> 
> If you answered yes to this question then please enlighten us on how you propose to motivate EC instead of blasting Pax.


I think I've been pretty clear on that in the past, but to summarize, I would 

1) say all the same things, but privately to Eddy and his family.

But realistically, I think the time for that is past already. I think

2) Eddy probably needs to a change of scenery to be motivated. I simply think the Bulls are trying to do something that it's not in their power to do. In doing so, they're wasting time and running down his value.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Mike, maybe I missed it, but who said it wouldn't have?
> 
> From the Bulls perspective, I don't think there was any difference whether it was 6 or 7 years. Either was too long. Seven was the number used because that's what the Knicks agreed to.


Well, because the Bulls actually offered him a 6 year deal. And because lots of folks said that the Bulls would likely be willing to add a bit to their MLE offer if it would seal the deal. Of course, it very well could have been offered only because the Bulls knew he wouldn't accept it. 

That is, in fact, what I think. I tend to think the Bulls didn't want Jamal back at all, and thus, the talk coming from the Bulls on issues like contract length and amount seem like spin to me. I realize why they had to do this... in order to leverage a "good" deal from the Knicks, but now that the deal is done, it just seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to make it sound like there's a huge difference between the 7 year deal starting at $5.75M the Knicks offered and the 6 year deal starting at $5M deal the Bulls offered.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> I didn't read this whole thread but I did hear part of the interview and the most interesting quote from Paxson was this:
> 
> "Eddy Curry will not play for the Chicago Bulls unless he gets down to 185"


Now that's just an unreasonable expectation! We're screwed!


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Wow! Quite a thread.
> 
> I heard most of the interview and I thought Paxson mishandled it. He sounded completely sincere, not emotional, just earnest and sincere. The interviewers wanted Eddy-directed controversy and Pax obliged by answering the questions too directly.


That's the thing though isn't it ?

And that's been Frank Paxson's individual style right from day one that he took the job

Being Frank .

Too Frank 

But this ties in with his damn the torpedoes belts and braces approach

And having such single mindedness and determination in follow through in his pre dtermined choices.. then I guess Frank Paxson doesn't give a square root if he comes across too direct and literal 

I called it last week

Eddy Curry's fate has already been determined. He may be a Bull for a while yet .. but he's already gone 

My guess... Eddy being Eddy and what he has shown us in his temprement to date - he will leave his head buried in the sand and in his passive aggressive way lumber along as the same lovable lug he is ... which is tantamount to flipping Frank Paxson the bird 

And this is the backwards and forwards of it all in how it will be until Frank Paxson actually has to execute what he has already made up his mind to do


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said in response to Kismet... I have no problem with pulling out all the stops privately, but I don't see any benefit at all (quite the opposite) in going public. It's foolish and hypocritical. It was definitely a step too far for me to say Paxson was a douche, which is nothing but a pejorative, but I don't think this episode paints him in a favorable light at all.
> ...


People around the league already know EC's history. They are not naive. GM's in this league prolly would agree that a change of scenery would/could work wonders. I'd be surpirsed if NBA GM's spend their time listening to Chicago radio. The GM's in this league prolly all would agree that the kid needs a fire lit under his butt. 

If what you believe is true and only a change of scenery will inspire the lazy butt, then what's wrong with calling him out publicly after, through his own laziness, he has let this oranization and it's fans down? I believe that the Bulls are at their wits end with this under-achiever. EC has rec'd his millions without question, but has not earned it. This is his 4th damn year. Pax is drawing a line in the sand and simply showing tough-love and openly demanding change......something every true Bulls fan should be cheering for right now. I also believe Skiles, Pax anf JR himself have had the private meetings, to no avail.


----------



## MagillaGorilla (Jul 8, 2004)

I have no problem with Pax calling Curry out publicly. They already had their private sit downs and as Curry has already shown, it made no difference. What was Pax supposed to do? Have another private chat with him? "PLEEAASE get in shape Eddie?" I think not. Pax had no other choice but to publicly humiliate him.

Lose the weight, fat boy.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Like Shaquille O'Neal, Tracy McGrady still is spending much of his summer in Orlando, even though he will be playing in Houston this season.

If his summer-time routine is any indication, McGrady is approaching the 2004-2005 season with a seriousness that must have the Rockets thrilled.

During the week, he lifts weights in the morning and plays basketball in the afternoon, then goes to a local high school track to run in the evening -- often after dark.

"This is as hard as I've ever worked out in my life,'' he said one night last week on his way home from the track. "But to get to the next level -- which I plan to do -- it's got to be done.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...f09080904aug09,1,4341626.story?coll=orl-magic

Just thought it would be interesting to read about how one of the really, really good NBA players is preparing for the coming season.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Like Shaquille O'Neal, Tracy McGrady still is spending much of his summer in Orlando, even though he will be playing in Houston this season.
> 
> If his summer-time routine is any indication, McGrady is approaching the 2004-2005 season with a seriousness that must have the Rockets thrilled.
> ...


Wow, if I were in Orlando, I would be able to have met Tracy McGrady cause I like to run on high school tracks too. Maybe I'm on the same trajectory as he is and I shall become an NBA superstar !


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

*Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> this stuff does not fly in the NBA.


I'm affraid this is correct


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think Pax is showing his rookiism again. First the cap saving trade of Jamal will absolutely come back and bite us in the ***. And I thought Paxson's comments about how the Bulls didn't "mistreat" Jamal because they moved Rose and Marshall to allow him to be the "man" were ridiculous at best. I mean, thats the equivalent of saying, "we had a lot of faith in Jamal thats why we took away the only other 2 real players the team had that were productive. Then we moved Jamal's position and he had every chance to suceed even though he was the only one on the team capable of creating his own shot." Thats just silly. They didn't do Crawford a favor by moving Rose & Marshall. 


Second, why call Eddy Curry out in public? I mean, if you have a problem why not just tell him that in private? Wouldn't it be just as effective? And why do this on the heels of Curry's blow up about everyone being concerned with his weight? And, btw, even if Curry is 310 he'd STILL be more effective than AD. All Pax is doing is pushing Curry and potentially getting rid of another big contract. Now when Curry demands to be traded Pax can move him for more capspace and we can listen to the Bulls fans who don't get it praise Paxson for getting rid of "soft" Eddy.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'll say this, Pax has done some things that I've really liked (he's drafted pretty well so far) and then he does other things that make me scratch my head. His calling out Curry in such a public manner would be one of those head-scratching things. I just can't see what good will come of it. I'm with a lot of others who think this sort of thing should be done in private. Get Eddy back in and get him back in front of Papa Reinsdorf to remind him of who's paying him and what his responsibilities are. Just don't call out someone like Eddy in the media like that. Pax is just too damned honest when responding to things like this. He needs a little Krause infusion in that respect. Give the media just little bites of info. Don't lay out the whole buffet in front of them.

Ahhhhh well. It's monday.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> If what you believe is true and only a change of scenery will inspire the lazy butt, then what's wrong with calling him out publicly after, through his own laziness, he has let this oranization and it's fans down? I believe that the Bulls are at their wits end with this under-achiever. EC has rec'd his millions without question, but has not earned it.


What's wrong with it? Two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, I disagree with your point that I snipped above. While I don't think that it will dramatically affect Eddy's trade value, you never know, and I don't see any positives to Paxson laying all this dirty laundry out there. At the very best, it will have no effect. However, NBA GMs are a fickle lot, and so are NBA players. Going public with a bunch of *****es intruduces an unknown variable that seems to have no positive consequences in the "getting value for Eddy" equation, at least to me.

If the Bulls are at their wit's end, doesn't than make this a witless move on their part? 



> This is his 4th damn year. Pax is drawing a line in the sand and simply showing tough-love and openly demanding change......something every true Bulls fan should be cheering for right now. I also believe Skiles, Pax anf JR himself have had the private meetings, to no avail.


Maybe that should tell them something. If they've already told Eddy all of this, why the need to do to all the world?

* To force yourself into a stance to don't have the guts to do otherwise?
* To begin a PR battle by turning fans against a kid so they won't be pissed when you do trade him? (in short, covering your own *** instead of just trading the kid the way they should, if they feel they need to)?
* To say the same thing to a kid you've already said?

Look, the kid is either going to get it or he isn't. They've tried a lot of stuff, and resorting to this level of public belittling (if only it actually made him smaller! :laugh: ) isn't going to work.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm somewhat surprised by all the heat thrown Pax's way after this interview. Pax didn't call a media event to publicly chastise Eddy. Within the course of an interview several questions were thrown his way regarding Eddy and he answered candidly. Personally, I thought it was the resposible thing to do given all the noise made about Eddy's weight in the last week. In fact, I forget his exact words, but Pax said Lacy's report, among others, were irresponsible and far from the truth. He went on to explain that Eddy's weight is a concern, but I honestly don't recall hearing him say anything to the effect of "Eddy better shape up or find his *** being traded out." Like I said before, he said Eddy will not practice with the team until his agreed upon weight is reached. When asked later if he's hesitant to trade Eddy because he is a big, Pax responded "no". 

What is sparking all this hatred towards Pax?

Oh, and there was a quote about Reinsdorf at some point and Jerry apparently runs/works out with Eddy. He was asked if Eddy's conditioning is up to par and Jerry says it could use some work. Pretty serious when your middle aged fat *** owner is critical of your conditioning.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> What is sparking all this hatred towards Pax?
> 
> Oh, and there was a quote about Reinsdorf at some point and Jerry apparently runs/works out with Eddy. He was asked if Eddy's conditioning is up to par and Jerry says it could use some work. Pretty serious when your middle aged fat *** owner is critical of your conditioning.


Its called agenda. Just look at whose pointing the fingers on this thread and its pretty telling.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Its called agenda. Just look at whose pointing the fingers on this thread and its pretty telling.


What's that supposed to mean? :|

An "agenda" to me implies some sort of dishonesty.

I do think Spook's interpretation is a legitimate one, but I just don't see how Pax's "in your face honesty" is very called for, or in this case very useful. And I read in a couple places that he said "Eddy won't be on the team if he doesn't make his weight". That sounded like a trade threat to me. Not calling Spook a liar at all... just saying that people hear things differently. What I heard was another public toungue-lashing and humiliation effort.

I don't know... but it appears to me this is hardly the first time tactics like that have been used by the Bulls to try and "get through" to their young players. And I understand *WHY* they're trying to do it... these kids are clueless to be sure. But just because there's a problem doesn't mean treating these kids this way is the solution. 

My take is that despite the fact that they're both "NBA guys", the Bulls seem intent on treating players the way you might see a college coach do it. Time has shown (repeatedly) that approach doesn't seem to work with NBA players who have a choice in the matter.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> They didn't do Crawford a favor by moving Rose & Marshall.


They gave Crawford a chance a SG. Pax (like the rest of the NBA GMs) did not see JC as a PG.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean? :|
> ...


MikeDC, I'm not implying anyone is wrong or dishonest here. How you interpret my two line commentary is your perogative.

IMO I just see the same users ramrodding the same point in multiple threads and topics again and again. Heck, I don't even read half the posts on these boards anymore because I can just summarize them in two words: Paxson bad. Is this a gross oversimplification? Probably. But the convergence of opinion as of late on these boards doesn't really do much for me. Hence my two line commentaries


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> They gave Crawford a chance a SG. Pax (like the rest of the NBA GMs) did not see JC as a PG.


Oh? I have heard a lot of NBA GM's talk about Jamal as a "promising young pg prospect" and if you notice, his assists are very high and his assist to turnover ratio is very low. And FYI, they told Crawford the previous offseason to work hard on his pg skills because he would be the teams STARTING pg, then later they decided to move him to SG to give Hinrich more burn. They didn't do Crawford any favors, THAT is for sure.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh? I have heard a lot of NBA GM's talk about Jamal as a "promising young pg prospect" and if you notice, his assists are very high and his assist to turnover ratio is very low. And FYI, they told Crawford the previous offseason to work hard on his pg skills because he would be the teams STARTING pg, then later they decided to move him to SG to give Hinrich more burn. They didn't do Crawford any favors, THAT is for sure.


When it got time to put their money where there mouth was, the GMs all passed.

Except one who can overpay for a third guard.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> When it got time to put their money where there mouth was, the GMs all passed.
> ...


Now see, thats just silly. I can count on one hand the # of teams that had enough capspace to offer Jamal well enough over the MLE that Pax wouldn't match. There are a lot more NBA teams that would have loved to have Jamal but didn't have any flexibility like NY to take on bad contracts. And "except one" seems to indicate that there WAS one, a hall of famer and 50 greatest player at that. So the whole point is basically invalid anyway.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Ok lets just stop the attacking pax pages it is already getting old. And ditto to the "the bulls disrespected JC bs". We will have plenty of time to see just how well he does in NY. As for pax i say lets see what he does.

He had a huge draft by and standard. He signed Nico (well maybe) but he lost JC. If he uses these expiring contracts to get us a quality, big, defensive mined SG then i say pax has had a great off season. 

But lets stop the pax bs and how great JC is going to be. We will see.

david


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Now see, thats just silly. I can count on one hand the # of teams that had enough capspace to offer Jamal well enough over the MLE that Pax wouldn't match. There are a lot more NBA teams that would have loved to have Jamal but didn't have any flexibility like NY to take on bad contracts. And "except one" seems to indicate that there WAS one, a hall of famer and 50 greatest player at that. So the whole point is basically invalid anyway.


Speaking of silly, is the fact that IT is a hall of famer. well, as GMs, so are Elgin Baylor and MJ and their teams didn't do so great. IT ain't looking so hot either.

We got expiring contracts for the great JC. This was not that high a hurdle. If the rumors of Deke for Pike are true, then Pax would have been fine to get back some guys with a heartbeat and longer contracts.

Your evaluation of JC is just so far from the league's evaluation it is not even funny.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Its called agenda. Just look at whose pointing the fingers on this thread and its pretty telling.


For some, most definatly, I'd agree. Pax could end up winning GM of the year and there will be those who would still rail on him. For me, I'd think most here would place me in the "pax camp". For the most part, I like what he's trying to accomplish. Where he seems pretty weak is in his dealing with the press and how much/what type of information he's willing to share with them. It just seems wrong to deal with a young player like Curry in such a manner. Pax isn't helping his cause if he want's to deal Curry either. If he starts to make public innuendo about Eddys' conditioning, that fact will get picked up on and used by other GM's around the league to downplay his trade value. Wanna get Paul Gasol for Curry? You're not going to do it by questioning his committment and condition in a public manner.

Pax is doing what he thinks he has to do. I don't agree with it but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. It's just not how I would approach it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> MikeDC, I'm not implying anyone is wrong or dishonest here. How you interpret my two line commentary is your perogative.
> ...


Well, if your opinion diverges, isn't the point to pipe up? 

No one is stifleing the debate. If someone wants to get up and defend Paxson and argue the point, they're free to.

No one here is stopping anyone from making posts that can be summarized as "Paxson good". *In fact, if you look through this thread, I see a pretty even split.* Kismet, Dan, Tom, Lorgg, spook, and quite a few others seem to think it was a good move. At the same time, I, Ace, Kukoc, Andras, ScottMay, Dabullz and others think it was a bad move. *Thus, I don't see much "covergence of opinion"*. 

Point is, there does seem to be a divergence of opinion, and there appear to be plenty of issues to debate. I guess what we need is some new issues to debate... we've said about all there is to say and gotten to the point where people are just repeating themselves. No one's going to convince each other, and that's fine. Maybe we'll do something crazy like start winning and have something better to talk about


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess what we need is some new issues to debate... we've said about all there is to say and gotten to the point where people are just repeating themselves.


:yes:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if your opinion diverges, isn't the point to pipe up?
> ...


Thanks for the pep talk. I'm ready to debate now.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Ok lets just stop the attacking pax pages it is already getting old. And ditto to the "the bulls disrespected JC bs". We will have plenty of time to see just how well he does in NY. As for pax i say lets see what he does.

He had a huge draft by and standard. He signed Nico (well maybe) but he lost JC. If he uses these expiring contracts to get us a quality, big, defensive mined SG then i say pax has had a great off season. 

But lets stop the pax bs and how great JC is going to be. We will see.

david


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the pep talk. I'm ready to debate now.


Jane, you ignorant slut.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Jane, you ignorant slut.


That quote is before my time.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Ok lets just stop the attacking pax pages it is already getting old. And ditto to the "the bulls disrespected JC bs". We will have plenty of time to see just how well he does in NY. As for pax i say lets see what he does.
> 
> He had a huge draft by and standard. He signed Nico (well maybe) but he lost JC. If he uses these expiring contracts to get us a quality, big, defensive mined SG then i say pax has had a great off season.
> ...


Ok, enough of all of this blind adulation to Pax for drafting like he should have and letting our leading scorer go for cap space. It's getting so old to listen to everyone praise Pax for what a lot of the league will consider BAD deals. 

So lets stop all of the Pax is great and JC isn't going to ever be great crap because we all know thats just crazy. We will see.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> That quote is before my time.


See old Saturday Night Live, Jane Curtain & Dan Akroyd doing the news.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> What is sparking all this hatred towards Pax?


Idiot move of trading Jamal for nothing.

Idiot move of ripping on Curry in public.

The current team is much worse than the one he took over, and the future looks bleak.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> See old Saturday Night Live, Jane Curtain & Dan Akroyd doing the news.


was it funny enough that I can't be slighly offended that a Community Moderator called me a slut?

:sigh:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> was it funny enough that I can't be slighly offended that a Community Moderator called me a slut?
> ...


I'm sorry man... I figured you'd catch the reference. (Of course!) no offense was intended.

And yeah, it was pretty funny


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sorry man... I figured you'd catch the reference. (Of course!) no offense was intended.
> ...


No problem Mike, check your PMs.

OT: as for classic SNL, I'm more an Eddie Murphy guy but I'm always up for researching some oldies...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> See old Saturday Night Live, Jane Curtain & Dan Akroyd doing the news.


I remember Point/Counterpoint very clearly. I loved those. 

But they never seem to show those episodes in the repeats on Comedy Central.


:no:


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dear god somebody fire pax and skiles*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> PG Crawford
> ...


Short term memory is just as bad.Neither Miller nor Brand wanted to remain in Chicago.Artest is a psycho despite his talent.If he had his head on straight,Indiana wouldn't have him on the trading block now.And Crawford is not mature enough to be a starting pg.....yet.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*In Over His Head.* 

That's the answer to MikeDC's riddle from about 4 pages ago. 

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

Anyway, I also heard the interview, but haven't had time to post on it until now. 

I'd say that Pax was a little bit blunt for my taste. He didn't need to share as much information as he did. (Note: I'm not on the Fire Pax wagon.) I'd speculate that he's a little over-anxious to show his competency and explain the motives behind his madness.

Personally, I don't understand the Magic Number (285 pounds) idea. He can't play basketball (even practice) until he reaches 285? Isn't it possible that he can finish getting into shape _by_ playing basketball? Let's say Eddy shows up and he's above weight... then I say to Pax, learn what you need to learn about him from the whole situation (ie, decide once and for all that he's a slug), but don't impair the entire team by holding the centerpiece of the offense out of practice.

He didn't really say anything new about the Crawford situation. He said it gives them Future Financial Flexibility (more on this later). Here's my take... if by "flexibility" he means the ability to acquire players even though we're above the cap, then I'm satisfied. If by "flexibility" he means the ability to sign our own players without cutting too much into our owners' profits, then I'm pissed.

For me, perhaps the most discouraging part of the interview was the discussion about ERob. I've seen rumors floating around that he and Bulls management reached some sort of understanding early in the summer, and I've been holding out hope that he might be able to contribute this season. But when given the chance to say anything remotely positive about ERob, Pax chose to remain silent. I guess we'll have too look elsewhere for our tall, athletic 2-guard who hustles and can shoot a jumper. :| 

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

Now that we're governed by Future Financial Flexibility, is anyone else in favor of a logo change? 









(France's national soccer logo, for the "football"-illiterate.  )


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

"Paxson hits the three"


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> No problem Mike, check your PMs.
> ...


Hi 

I'm Eddie Murphy - big new star on Saturday Night Live 

I have no education and I earn more money than most of you white folk earn in a lifetime 

So if your young , white , in college and are thinking about dropping out - do it 

Go out and drink beer , play Space Invaders and get each other pregnant 

_ Older white guy walks up and utters _

Your limousine is ready Mr Murphy 

_ EM _

Thank you Sammy 

Sammy here went to Harvard


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

In the word of Eddie Curry himself.....
I like that things were the way they were and that I was able to use the negative publicity as a motivational factor. It’s all the more reason for me to be in the best shape possible and get where I need to be.” 

Maybe Pax is smarter than y'all think??

Eh Mikedc?


----------

