# While our season has just ended, Tim Thomas has just saved the Suns'



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Freakin' insane and ironic as hell. I have to admit, tonight I am furious at Pax/Skiles for letting an opportunity like this get away. Realizing the irony of our season ending, possibly because we were missing a guy like him, and the Suns' season being saved thanks to his overtime-causing 3-pointer. Especially watching him against Kobe & co. tonight. 21 points or so off the bench, and unbelievable 3 point shooting. The dagger he nailed to send this game to overtime when the Suns looked like they were finished, and then the other 3 he nailed to push the game out of reach in OT, had me happy for him.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I would have said that it wouldn't have mattered if Deng had shown up for the series. A tandem of Nocioni and Tim Thomas would have been mighty nice.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Say whatever you want abt Tim Thomas, but he's got more balls then anybody on this team and would easily be our best offensively player too. Most skilled at the very least. Could've used him against Miami in place of Deng.


----------



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

SPMJ said:


> Say whatever you want abt Tim Thomas, but he's got more balls then anybody on this team and would easily be our best offensively player too. Most skilled at the very least. Could've used him against Miami in place of Deng.


Umm, I guess you've never heard of a guy named Steve Nash. 

If Nash didn't have those two turnovers in game 4, we probably wouldn't even have seen these two shots by Tim Thomas. Tim Thomas should just be happy that Steve had the foresight to give him this opportunity to play hero and thus a way into another fat contract.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I think this situation is bigger because Songaila got hurt. It sounds cheap now, but I was saying it when the whole thing went down, that I wish they could get it settled because he can score. He does seem selfish with the ball though, and I won't make a positive or negative decision without knowing everything that happened with him here (behind the scenes), and I don't/won't.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Umm, I guess you've never heard of a guy named Steve Nash.
> 
> If Nash didn't have those two turnovers in game 4, we probably wouldn't even have seen these two shots by Tim Thomas. Tim Thomas should just be happy that Steve had the foresight to give him this opportunity to play hero and thus a way into another fat contract.


I don't think you've been keeping track of TT since he started with the Suns, have you? In this series alone:

15.2 PPG
7.8 Reb
54% FG
53.9% 3PT
1.8 STL

Playing for a fat contract? Sure. But I wish he coulda done that for us. 

still...yeah, I see the downsides. It would have impacted playing time for Deng more than likely. Which may have been a bad thing, since I personally feel it was good for him to finally play some playoff games and just get his cobwebs/flutters taken care of in this series. We also know it was a given that TT would probably leave us after the season anyway, so it would have been a waste and would have impacted our focus on the future style. And then the whole attitude thing. People tend to forget this was the same guy who threatened ray allen with physical violence.

Don't get me wrong, I think we did an excellent job in this series, particularly game 3. without a legitimate big man inside we humiliated shaquille o neal in perhaps his worst performance ever, and in the playoffs at that. now next year, if we are not past the 1st round, then it's time to be worried.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

This is kind of OT, but does anyone think Skiles should have moved Deng in to the starting lineup? This team was not going to win with mixed performances from any of: Hinrich, Gordon, Noc, or Deng.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Thomas ain't playing SF on the Suns. He is playing PF and C. Now maybe he had to sit out most of the season b/f he we would do this... Of course, maybe not...

He sure as hell could have sat on our bench all season until he was ready to play PF and C.

Ironic as all get out b/c his offensive skills are right up Skiles alley.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

aw look, its tim thomas playoffs-in-a-contract-year act again.

how cute.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

_[choose your own curse]_ Tim Thomas. 

I don't care about the details. He's permanently in my doghouse no matter what he does.

Correct that. The better he plays, the more I loath him as a basketball player who refused to play for my team on the same terms as everyone else.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Please please please, don't let a few numbers fool you into thinking Tim Thomas is some savior. For the millionth time, the Suns system is an up-tempo, stat-inflating system that makes average players look better than they are. Steve Nash and D'Antoni are primarily responsible for this, and having verstatile studs like Marion and Diaw only help the system. It allows average groupies like Raja Bell, Barbosa, James Jones, Eddie House, and yes, Tim Thomas, to put up numbers. 

Tim Thomas is athletic and he's a good long-distance shooter (like that's what the Bulls need more of), but he's also a poor defender and plays like he's 8 inches shorter than he really is. That's about all he offers, and yet that's all you need to excel in the Suns' system. And here's an interesting fact, the Suns were 36-17 before getting TT (68% winning percentage), but 18-11 after getting him (62%). Not to mention they nearly got bounced in the 1st round (and still might, though unlikely at this point). TT is no savior, and I really don't think he would've given anything we don't already have, other than a bad attitude.


----------



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

anorexorcist said:


> I don't think you've been keeping track of TT since he started with the Suns, have you? In this series alone:
> 
> 15.2 PPG
> 7.8 Reb
> ...


Wow, wow, wow. You're just confirming my theory that this guy is a stat-padder. 

1.8 steals per game --- that clearly just shows how he tries to go for the steal and thus better numbers instead of playing good Skiles-stay-in-front defense. 

54% FG, 53.9% 3PT --- it's because he only takes close high-percentage shots and only takes wide open shots. He obviously doesn't have the courage, tenacity, or mental willpower to shoot over anyone or launch 20 foot shots from the corner like any Skiles' hard-working basketball player; this clearly doesn't fit in with Skiles' brand of basketball. 

7.8 rebounds --- Clearly being overly and needlessly aggressive with rebounds that probably could've gone to Shawn Marion. But Shawn Marion being a team leader like Nash trying to get everyone involved lets a role playing stat padder like Tim Thomas get his. 

Not only is a stat padder, but, he would take away developing time and bench space from Luke Schenscher, Othella Harrington, and Mike Sweetney. He may have looked slow and unbelievably weak out there, but he's already performed better in the playoffs than Darko EVER did for the Pistons. 2 rebounds and 2 points in just 5 minutes a game, imagine how that would look over 48 minutes. 

Maybe we would've gotten to the 2nd round of the playoffs with Tim Thomas, but the 2nd round of the playoffs is overrated anyway. This just gives us more time to develop and work on our games. Our general manager and coach get the stress off them temporarily before we decide what to do in the draft. Instead of half-*** trade proposals they have been trying on RealGM trade checker and NBA Live 2006, they can now devote ALL their energy into making realistic deals involving Ben Gordon (another stat-padding flash player/leading scorer). Seeing how we ended up Piatkowski (veteran), Harrington (team captain), and a lottery pick to show for our last few leading scorers, I can't wait to see what they cook up.


> still...yeah, I see the downsides.


Good, then we shouldn't even have to continue this conversation.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Tim Thomas could have helped the Bulls. PERIOD. If no one can see that then they clearly dont know the game of basketball. It was a mistake to treat him the way the Bulls did, and I am sure privately they would admit as such.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I'm amazed TT hit the shots. In the 2000 series conference finals between Indiana and Milwuakee ,he disappeared in Game 5 after playing well earlier in the series. Then blamed Sam Casell for his performance in that game. Which over looked the fact that Casell's fouling out with two minutes left in the game doomed the Bucks. 

A Suns-Clippers series could be really interesting.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Tim Thomas could have helped the Bulls. PERIOD. If no one can see that then they clearly dont know the game of basketball. It was a mistake to treat him the way the Bulls did, and I am sure privately they would admit as such.


I just don't see it that way. I don't see how you can just throw any player onto a team, even if he is somewhat talented, and expect the team to get better. If it's not a good fit, it might actually be counterproductive. The Magic almost made the playoffs after trading Steve Francis, despite losing a significant amount of talent in that trade. That doesn't mean it was the wrong move.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I just don't see it that way. I don't see how you can just throw any player onto a team, even if he is somewhat talented, and expect the team to get better. If it's not a good fit, it might actually be counterproductive. The Magic almost made the playoffs after trading Steve Francis, despite losing a significant amount of talent in that trade. That doesn't mean it was the wrong move.[/QUOTE
> 
> How do you, Scott Skiles, John Paxson or anyone else knows? He wasnt given a shot. AT ALL. Clearly he isnt the cancer that he was painted in Chicago. Phoenix is another of those holier then holy franchise who seems to think he works hard enough for them. The point is, Tim Thomas didnt need to be inactive for the entire season. Even the biggest Pax/Skiles apologists can acknowledge it wasnt handled right.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I just don't see it that way. I don't see how you can just throw any player onto a team, even if he is somewhat talented, and expect the team to get better. If it's not a good fit, it might actually be counterproductive. The Magic almost made the playoffs after trading Steve Francis, despite losing a significant amount of talent in that trade. That doesn't mean it was the wrong move.


How could it possibly be counterproductive?

Which 6'10" Villanova SF/PF would you rather have in the starting lineup: Malik Allen or Tim Thomas?

There is no way you can say TT wouldn't have helped the Bulls this year. It was just a bad move.

Paxon and Skiles out-thought themselves with this one. The "he doesn't fit our style/we want to develop the young guys/he doesn't have a Bulls attitude" all sounds great on paper, but when it comes down to it, who do you want on the floor? Malik Allen or Tim Thomas?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Tim Thomas = cancer.


Yes he's playing well now... because he's interested... and he's interested because he found himself on the team that's probably the most fun to play with (up-tempo, great record) in a playoff push...

Tim Thomas when he's not interested.... well, ask people here in Milwaukee.... he jacks up jumpers and plays little to no defense. Do you think he would have stayed interested in Chicago all year playing for a team that had to push themselves to get back to .500? I doubt it... so we'd have the loafing, no D-playing, overpaid Tim Thomas sucking away minutes from Nocioni and Deng and setting a terrible example for a young team while he's at it...

no thanks. no regrets here.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Tim Thomas = cancer.
> 
> 
> Yes he's playing well now... because he's interested... and he's interested because he found himself on the team that's probably the most fun to play with (up-tempo, great record) in a playoff push...
> ...


 I agree but you and I cannot deny he would have helped the Bulls during the playoffs. Yes, he would have sucked the minutes of an ineffective Deng and pair up Tim Thomas with Sweetney or Malik so that we would not have been forced to play a horrible Chandler. 

It's tough to say if we would have made the playoffs with Tim Thomas on our team. It's not like we could have stashed him away until the playoffs. 

How much damage can one person do?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Even the biggest Pax/Skiles apologists can acknowledge it wasnt handled right.


I can't. 

The only time I remember that he was even on the roster is when these threads pop up from time to time (curiously never when the Bulls are going 12-2, for example). 

I didn't give it a second thought when it happened, and I still don't. 

Since we are playing the what if game, how about this one - What if Tim Thomas was, in fact, productive and earned minutes for this team and the result was that we didn't get to see Nocioni emerge the way he did? Because, to me, Nocioni's arrival is the most important thing that happened to the Bulls this season. 

Part of the mentality behind the Thomas situation was that he was the 3rd man behind Deng and Noc. Taking the cancer thing out of it in its entirety, I still don't regret it since each Tim Thomas minute = less minutes for developing Deng, Noc and even Sweets. Thomas wasn't coming back. His minutes would have been a waste on a team that wasn't going to contend with or without him.

Tim Thomas would have been meaningless to this young, developing Bulls team. Neither cancerous, nor a saviour. Neither counter-productive, nor productive. Meaningless. 

We needed to develop and evaluate this young core. We did not need to evaluate Tim Thomas.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Since we are playing the what if game, how about this one - What if Tim Thomas was, in fact, productive and earned minutes for this team and the result was that we didn't get to see Nocioni emerge the way he did? Because, to me, Nocioni's arrival is the most important thing that happened to the Bulls this season.
> 
> Part of the mentality behind the Thomas situation was that he was the 3rd man behind Deng and Noc. Taking the cancer thing out of it in its entirety, I still don't regret it since each Tim Thomas minute = less minutes for developing Deng, Noc and even Sweets. Thomas wasn't coming back. His minutes would have been a waste on a team that wasn't going to contend with or without him.


Why did his minutes have to come at the expense of Deng and Nocioni? Malik Allen and Othella Harrington are the ones who would have lost their minutes - and deservedly so because they are awful.

I was at Chicago's first preseason game of the year and Thomas was one of the teams lone bright spots. I've never understood how they couldn't find a role for him.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> I agree but you and I cannot deny he would have helped the Bulls during the playoffs. Yes, he would have sucked the minutes of an ineffective Deng and pair up Tim Thomas with Sweetney or Malik so that we would not have been forced to play a horrible Chandler.
> 
> It's tough to say if we would have made the playoffs with Tim Thomas on our team. It's not like we could have stashed him away until the playoffs.
> 
> How much damage can one person do?



I don't know that Andres Noicioni becomes as effective as he was in the playoffs this year with Tim Thomas on the team... seems like Andres needed the minutes to build up confidence coming into the series and that things came together pretty well for him.... 

The assertion that we were "forced" to play Chandler is strange... seems to me we _wanted_to play Chandler because he's our best defensive big man... and if Tim Thomas were on the team that would still be the case...


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Was interested by Doug Collins's version of history in last night's game - he said it's not like the Bulls were punishing Tim Thomas by sending him home, they just wanted to develop other players - namely Deng and Noce. Does anyone believe that? He made a point of saying it. Propaganda? Mistake? Truth? I've always assumed it was an attitude/cancer sort of decision, and not a playing time one. Regardless, from what I've seen in the playoffs, Thomas wouldn't have been playing SF for us anyway. Thomas defended PFs most of the night last night, right? 7.8 rebounds from the PF spot would have been a lot better than the 5.2 or whatever our Center used to get us last year. It might have been interesting to see how his midrange game melded with Tyson's putbacks or Sweetney's post moves. Sadly, his game might best mix with the guy for whom he was traded...

It stinks that we'll never know the whole story. Not sure what the advantage is to the Bulls in keeping it secret, but it's a secret anyway.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I can't.
> 
> The only time I remember that he was even on the roster is when these threads pop up from time to time (curiously never when the Bulls are going 12-2, for example).
> 
> ...



Your missing the boat. Is Tim Thomas more valuable then any of our bigs? He wouldnt have taken minutes from Noc or Deng. Thomas is basically playing almost exclusively as a 4/5. If you watch the Suns, you would know that. Its not a stretch to think he could have done that here? Dont you think?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Plenty of minutes for TT, especially in the playoffs.

He can play the 4, as we're seeing him do for the Suns.

He would be one of our 5 best players.

The Noc/Deng/minutes argument is a smoke screen for the apologists. Our 4s and 5s suck so bad that there would be plenty of time for a hungry player like TT. 

I'd love to hear why there would be minutes for Deng/Noc/Al Harrington but Deng/Noc/TT is impossible. And, we were already paying TT!!!!! 


Poorly handled.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> Your missing the boat. Is Tim Thomas more valuable then any of our bigs? He wouldnt have taken minutes from Noc or Deng. Thomas is basically playing almost exclusively as a 4/5. If you watch the Suns, you would know that. Its not a stretch to think he could have done that here? Dont you think?



Maybe I'm missing the boat too... but weren't the Suns just playing for their lives against a 7 seed? Isn't Lamar Odom scoring 20 points a game against them after averaging 14 in the regular season? And yet Tim Thomas would have been the answer to our woes in the interior?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Philomath said:


> Was interested by Doug Collins's version of history in last night's game - he said it's not like the Bulls were punishing Tim Thomas by sending him home, they just wanted to develop other players - namely Deng and Noce. Does anyone believe that? He made a point of saying it. Propaganda? Mistake? Truth? I've always assumed it was an attitude/cancer sort of decision, and not a playing time one. Regardless, from what I've seen in the playoffs, Thomas wouldn't have been playing SF for us anyway. Thomas defended PFs most of the night last night, right? 7.8 rebounds from the PF spot would have been a lot better than the 5.2 or whatever our Center used to get us last year. It might have been interesting to see how his midrange game melded with Tyson's putbacks or Sweetney's post moves. Sadly, his game might best mix with the guy for whom he was traded...
> 
> It stinks that we'll never know the whole story. Not sure what the advantage is to the Bulls in keeping it secret, but it's a secret anyway.


The Bulls have never really gotten their story straight when it comes to Thomasgate.

The first time I heard Paxson talk about it on the radio, he practically took pains to say that the dismissal had nothing at all to do with not practicing hard or failing to follow directions. Of course, that was before the trading deadline, so perhaps he was trying to spin things positively and have Thomas remain somewhat attractive as a tradeable asset.

Then, later on, Paxson would almost directly contradict what he had said initially. The beat writers weighed in with "sources say" pieces that said Thomas didn't want to practice and had had words with Skiles, etc.

I'm not really sure what to believe. There's no upside in the Bulls coming clean publicly, but they likely will have to explain what happened to the agents of players they might like to sign this summer.

And I think Thomas would have been an asset to the Bulls this year. He can play the 3, he can play the 4, and in certain situations you can even throw him out as a 2 or a 5. That's a lot of minutes and a lot of situations.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I can't.
> 
> The only time I remember that he was even on the roster is when these threads pop up from time to time (curiously never when the Bulls are going 12-2, for example).
> 
> ...


Exactly!! :clap: :clap: 

Everybody read this, understand this, and then move on.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I don't know that Andres Noicioni becomes as effective as he was in the playoffs this year with Tim Thomas on the team... seems like Andres needed the minutes to build up confidence coming into the series and that things came together pretty well for him....
> 
> The assertion that we were "forced" to play Chandler is strange... seems to me we _wanted_to play Chandler because he's our best defensive big man... and if Tim Thomas were on the team that would still be the case...


I doubt Tim Thomas plays any regular minutes in the regular season anyways. I think Andres would have gotten his no matter what. He's been playing fantastic the last two months.

Yes Chandler is our best defensive big but he's been largely ineffective not only against Shaq but being the help defender and just plain rebounding.



Philomath said:


> Was interested by Doug Collins's version of history in last night's game - he said it's not like the Bulls were punishing Tim Thomas by sending him home, they just wanted to develop other players - namely Deng and Noce. Does anyone believe that? He made a point of saying it. Propaganda? Mistake? Truth? I've always assumed it was an attitude/cancer sort of decision, and not a playing time one. Regardless, from what I've seen in the playoffs, Thomas wouldn't have been playing SF for us anyway. Thomas defended PFs most of the night last night, right? 7.8 rebounds from the PF spot would have been a lot better than the 5.2 or whatever our Center used to get us last year. It might have been interesting to see how his midrange game melded with Tyson's putbacks or Sweetney's post moves. Sadly, his game might best mix with the guy for whom he was traded...
> 
> It stinks that we'll never know the whole story. Not sure what the advantage is to the Bulls in keeping it secret, but it's a secret anyway.


That's Tim Thomas' story


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Your missing the boat. Is Tim Thomas more valuable then any of our bigs? He wouldnt have taken minutes from Noc or Deng. Thomas is basically playing almost exclusively as a 4/5. If you watch the Suns, you would know that. Its not a stretch to think he could have done that here? Dont you think?


We aren't the Suns. He would not have played the 5 spot in Skiles system. Absolutely no freakin' way. D'Antoni doesn't care about defensive matchups. He plays Diaw at center sometimes for cryin' out loud. He rotates guys based on offense only. Skiles is, for the most part, the exact opposite. 

Thomas would have played the 3/4, which is what Deng and Noc do. Noc in particular plays a lot of 4. Almost half his minutes, I'd say. And when he started to emerge the last 6 weeks of the season, that was when we were going small a lot with him in the 4 spot. 

Certainly Thomas would have played a lot of 4. When we acquired him, thats where I predicted he'd play for us. But that still takes minutes from Noc/Deng. There would have been very few circumstances when all 3 would have been on the court at the same time. One of the three would be sitting in favor of the other 2. And if that one isn't Thomas, then its costing minutes to the guys we need to develop.

His presence and his departure are absolutely without meaning except to provide an opportunity to wring hands during the down moments of the season. When we went 12-2 to make the playoffs, I didn't see many posts lamenting that we'd be 13-1 with Tim Thomas.

He is somewhere for fans to look when they are upset with a loss. Nothing more.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He is somewhere for fans to look when they are upset with a loss. Nothing more.


Ron,

After the Curry trade, you identified Thomas as the key guy we were getting back. I think you may have even suggested he become our full-time starter at the 4. What changed your mind about the guy?

Don't get me wrong -- it's terrific that Noce took his opportunity and made the most of it. But I'm just curious how you go from nominating a guy as a starting 4 to saying he wouldn't have and shouldn't have played a single minute.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Meh. This topic has been debated back and forth ad nauseum. To me, Thomas doesn't win us this playoff series, most likely. He's not going to be on the team next year. I'd rather develop our core guys.

Like Ron said, everyone needs something to blame when the team loses.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Obviously Paxson and Skiles thought Thomas' negative effects would be greater than his positive contributions. You can argue that, but we don't really have the benifit of comparing a Bulls w/Thomas season and beyond to a Bulls w/o Thomas season and beyond. 

I think it's crazy to suggest that Paxson and Skiles are concerned with anything other than winning.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> How do you, Scott Skiles, John Paxson or anyone else knows? He wasnt given a shot. AT ALL. Clearly he isnt the cancer that he was painted in Chicago. Phoenix is another of those holier then holy franchise who seems to think he works hard enough for them. The point is, Tim Thomas didnt need to be inactive for the entire season. Even the biggest Pax/Skiles apologists can acknowledge it wasnt handled right.


Well likewise, how do you _know_ that he would've helped us? The only evidence we have to base an opinion from is, a) his not-so-impressive track record, and b) what PaxSkiles decided based on his time in practices and training camp. Just to be clear, this isn't a knock on his character. I understand that you know TT, and I"m sure he's a nice guy. But from everything I've gathered, the fit just wasn't there. Why would we play a guy who plays lackluster defense, doesn't hustle, and who's game revolves around the 3-point shot (which we already have plenty of), especially when he'd be taking minutes from Deng and Nocioni? Size is what we lacked, and TT doesn't play big in the least.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> We aren't the Suns. He would not have played the 5 spot in Skiles system. Absolutely no freakin' way. D'Antoni doesn't care about defensive matchups. He plays Diaw at center sometimes for cryin' out loud. He rotates guys based on offense only. Skiles is, for the most part, the exact opposite.


So Skiles is ok with a 6'3" SF but not ok with a 6'9" C. Boy, it's getting deep in here.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Ron,
> 
> After the Curry trade, you identified Thomas as the key guy we were getting back. I think you may have even suggested he become our full-time starter at the 4. What changed your mind about the guy?
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- it's terrific that Noce took his opportunity and made the most of it. But I'm just curious how you go from nominating a guy as a starting 4 to saying he wouldn't have and shouldn't have played a single minute.


Although I think you are slightly misstating it, I basically did do that - as noted above in this very thread the 4 spot is where I predicted he'd get his minutes. I don't think I said he was "the key", I think I said that he could be the real surprise x-factor or something along those lines and that he could be productive in an up-temp lineup. Of course, that was written before Tim even arrived in Chicago.

But what I'm looking at now is hindsight, as we all are. Looking back at the season, any minute to Thomas - whether at the 3 or 4 - would cost a minute to Deng/Noc. I see no point in that given that Thomas didn't have a future in Chicago.

And my post expressly took the "cancer" element out of it. But when I read that a guy is 3rd string, and not working as hard as the others and that is why he goes away, I believe it. If you want me to include the cancer thing, then my opinion is that he was a cancer. I see no reason why he'd be sent away otherwise, being that I don't think the Coach and GM of this team act on sinister motives. Especially with Thomas' track record. 

I believe that, upon arrival, Tim Thomas displayed an entitlement mentality and wouldn't buy into the system. But I was trying to exclude that from the analysis. And in so excluding it, I still find "Thomasgate" to be a meaningless distraction for disgruntled fans. Somewhere to point a finger and nothing more.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

The short-term improvement in overall team talent is not enough to make up for the long-term influence Tim Thomas' work ethic would have had on this young team. How about this analogy? With whom would you rather have your child be friends: the hard-working honor roll student, or the high school dropout drug dealer?

Tim Thomas has no love for the game of basketball. He sees his athletic talents as a half-assed way to make millions of dollars.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Tim Thomas has no love for the game of basketball. He sees his athletic talents as a half-assed way to make millions of dollars.


Whatever his motivations, the LA Lakers and Kobe Bryant sure wish he was less inspired.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> So Skiles is ok with a 6'3" SF but not ok with a 6'9" C. Boy, it's getting deep in here.


The Bulls did not play their small forwards at center. I don't believe Thomas would have played any meaningful minutes at the 5 spot in Chicago. The periodic 3 guard rotation notwithstanding.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> Yes Chandler is our best defensive big but he's been largely ineffective not only against Shaq but being the help defender and just plain rebounding.



We rarely used Tyson as a help defender in that series... 


Outside of a few timely shots I don't think Tim Thomas really makes Phoenix that much better. 

I think we did the right thing with him... no need to let him negatively influence an otherwise young core... we're probably still spraying down the lockerrom to remove any lingering traces of Eddie Robinson


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And in so excluding it, I still find "Thomasgate" to be a meaningless distraction for disgruntled fans. Somewhere to point a finger and nothing more.


I haven't seen a single poster, "disgruntled" or otherwise, point to Tim Thomas and proclaim that he would have been our savior this year. I do see posters saying we would have been a better player with him on the roster and with his getting minutes that went to Luke Schenscher or Malik Allen or Othella Harrington or "Sweets" (to say nothing of those nights Deng and Nocioni were off, or in foul trouble).

I find it difficult to outright reject that notion when the player in question is hitting absolutely enormous shots in one of the most competitive and hard-fought first-round series I've ever seen.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Whatever his motivations, the LA Lakers and Kobe Bryant sure wish he was less inspired.


Whose knows but that those shots he hit were only important because his poor defense on Kwame freekin Brown (who has been schooling him all series) and poor rotations allowed the game to get to that point?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I haven't seen a single poster, "disgruntled" or otherwise, point to Tim Thomas and proclaim that he would have been our savior this year. I do see posters saying we would have been a better player with him on the roster and with his getting minutes that went to Luke Schenscher or Malik Allen or Othella Harrington or "Sweets" (to say nothing of those nights Deng and Nocioni were off, or in foul trouble).
> 
> I find it difficult to outright reject that notion when the player in question is hitting absolutely enormous shots in one of the most competitive and hard-fought first-round series I've ever seen.


Again, their defense is horrible. He fits right in.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Thanks a lot from a Laker fan. If you just let Thomas finish off his contract on your team like he was supposed to I would be waiting for a game at Staples against the Clips on Saturday.

This trend in the past 3 years of teams letting quality players in their final years of contracts just go to waste following a trade is annoying.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> The short-term improvement in overall team talent is not enough to make up for the long-term influence Tim Thomas' work ethic would have had on this young team. How about this analogy? With whom would you rather have your child be friends: the hard-working honor roll student, or the high school dropout drug dealer?


I would rather have my child befriend the hard-working honor-roll student. But I'd also like to have my child prepared to deal with and be able to extract the most benefit from people who aren't hard-working honor-roll students. It's been my experience that hard-working honor-roll students who can't get along with anything but hard-working honor-roll students tend to wash out really quickly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I haven't seen a single poster, "disgruntled" or otherwise, point to Tim Thomas and proclaim that he would have been our savior this year.


Did I say anyone was doing that? I specifically noted that I don't think he would have been a saviour *or a detriment* to over-all team play. I think he would have been meaningless and would have taken minutes from players who would better use them to the future benefit of the team. 



> I do see posters saying we would have been a better player with him on the roster and with his getting minutes that went to Luke Schenscher or Malik Allen or Othella Harrington or "Sweets" (to say nothing of those nights Deng and Nocioni were off, or in foul trouble).


Maybe. But not enough to make this team contend. Not enough to justify minutes going to a one year player instead of core youth like Nocioni and Deng. This is my point.



> I find it difficult to outright reject that notion when the player in question is hitting absolutely enormous shots in one of the most competitive and hard-fought first-round series I've ever seen.


These nice plays give you pause. I can understand that. I take no pause, though. I saw Ron Artest do all kinds of wonderful things in Indiana, but never once wished he was still in Chicago. And I still don't. Same with Thomas. I'm concerned with the big picture here and Tim Thomas was never going to be in it.


----------



## beaniemac (May 4, 2006)

I don't care how well TT plays in one playoff series, this guy sucks. he did this last time he was about to be a free agent in philly. he plays good for a playoff series and then gets a fat contract. you won't see him playing anywhere near this level next season. and back in 2000, the bulls were trying to actually sign him back then too.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Again, their defense is horrible. He fits right in.


True, Phoenix's defense is horrible, but they still had one of the better records in the league. Phoenix has a veteran team (fifth oldest in the league) and can withstand Tim Thomas' practice habits the same way the Jordan Bulls withstood Dennis Rodman's antics.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I just want to add to this discussion that despite Tim Thomas's important 3 pointers in this series, he's also been spending some time in the post. He's a pretty good player when he applies himself.

I was worried about losing face with NBA free agents due to the Thomas situation, but I'm at least a little less worried now. We did eventually buy him out and let him move to a team in which he has thrived. With Amare's health in doubt, Thomas is the perfect insurance policy for Phoenix. I can't imagine them not resigning him. It's a good fit for both parties.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

anorexorcist said:


> I don't think you've been keeping track of TT since he started with the Suns, have you? In this series alone:
> 
> 15.2 PPG
> 7.8 Reb
> ...


That's how it is. Whenever someone is playing good, but not a "Paxson guy," then they are just playing for a contract. If they are a jibby, cagey, solid, "Pax-type" (That was my favorite adjective from last summer) player, then it's just their hard work paying off.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

For all we know, Scott Skiles told Tim Thomas to stand in a certain position on the court in offense, and Tim Thomas told skiles that he might be more effective in a different spot in the offense, and that might have what got Thomas thrown off the team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I guess it was too much to ask for a seventh gripping, compelling game.

I'm bummed that Lakers-Clippers isn't going to happen. I think Phoenix will comfortably beat the Clippers, and that Thomas will again play a large role in offsetting the opponent's interior advantage.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

A Pro-Thomas stance merely = an Anti-Paxson stance.

I'm happy for him, and I hope he gets a ring. But he is a piece...not an answer. Phoenix was a good team without him, and would continue to challenge if he went down.

So why the outsized Tim Thomas talk on this forum? See line 1. Ahhh politics...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

anorexorcist said:


> Freakin' insane and ironic as hell. I have to admit, tonight I am furious at Pax/Skiles for letting an opportunity like this get away. Realizing the irony of our season ending, possibly because we were missing a guy like him, and the Suns' season being saved thanks to his overtime-causing 3-pointer. Especially watching him against Kobe & co. tonight. 21 points or so off the bench, and unbelievable 3 point shooting. The dagger he nailed to send this game to overtime when the Suns looked like they were finished, and then the other 3 he nailed to push the game out of reach in OT, had me happy for him.


The guy is a lazy floater. He plays on a team where he has little responsibility for team success. All he has to do is stand at the three point line and let Marion rebound, let Nash get him the ball, let Bell do the defending and let Diaw do everything else. I don't miss anything he has done so far. He doesn't add rebounding, intensity, hussle, post play, leadership. That's what we are missing. We don't need a 6'10" three point shooter making $13M per season. Phoenix is the ONLY team in this league where he could succeed. And if Stoudemire was playing, Thomas would be getting very few minutes.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I guess it was too much to ask for a seventh gripping, compelling game.
> 
> I'm bummed that Lakers-Clippers isn't going to happen. I think Phoenix will comfortably beat the Clippers, and that Thomas will again play a large role in offsetting the opponent's interior advantage.


How is he offsetting the Lakers interior advantage? Brown and Odom were scoring above their season averages against PHX and Kwame had a bunch of easy shots which he's missed. He averaged 0.3 blocks this series. 

The guy has scored well (often from the perimeter), but we all know he could do that.

Plus PHX was the better regular season team and swept LA (some games w/o Thomas). Getting stretched to 7 games was an underachievement.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I understand the need to play younger equal caliber players, but come on, he deserves all of Pike's minutes... probably deserved all of Malik Allen's minutes as well. Hell just keep him to add another dimension to practice. Why pay a guy to play elsewhere?

Malik Allen is a 18 feet and in Tim Thomas. He's not a good rebounder, doesn't post up, not a great defender....

God damn, do you still have that fire Paxson club DaBullz?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

O NOW EVERYONE WISH'S HE HAD KEEPT TT..but back when i was saying how big of a mistake it was to let him go it was " HIS JIB" "he's Lazy" "he sucks" ECT,now i want to ask all you TT haters and SS/pax Lovers this,do you still think Pax and SS made the right call and let TT go?

I Love it when Pax and namely SS come out looking like FOOLs becuase of this whole "JIB" thing,and theres NOWAY around them looking like fools by leting a player like TT slip away for nothing..theres NO Dfence for that move...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> How is he offsetting the Lakers interior advantage? Brown and Odom were scoring above their season averages against PHX and Kwame had a bunch of easy shots which he's missed. He averaged 0.3 blocks this series.


Phoenix doesn't have the personnel or the desire to shut teams down. They beat people by outscoring them, plain and simple. Guys like Brown and Odom (and Kaman and Brand) are going to feast on the Suns. Thomas is offsetting and minimizing the damage by putting up big points in those individual matchups. And he'll be even more successful vs. Kaman or Brand -- they're even more reluctant to leave the paint. Thomas will either make a ton of jumpers vs. those guys, or he'll help his team by getting a big shotblocker/rebounder out of the paint. 



> The guy has scored well (often from the perimeter), but we all know he could do that.


As Doug Collins said tonight, Thomas has scored from all over the floor -- off the dribble, in the post, etc. Nope, he didn't block a lot of shots in the series. He did shoot a ridiculously good percentage, led the Suns in defensive rebounds and was second in steals and fourth in scoring. Collins also noted how fearless Thomas was all series long in pressure situations.



> Plus PHX was the better regular season team and swept LA (some games w/o Thomas). Getting stretched to 7 games was an underachievement.


You're probably right, but that speaks more to a poor series by Marion and Bell and a couple of bad games by Nash. Aside from literally saving the Suns' bacon in Game 6, Thomas, along with Diaw and Barbosa, picked up the team and propelled it into the next round. Those guys won the series for the Suns; it wasn't their performances that made the series closer than it should have been.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ESPN Page 2 gave credit to Skiles (and more importantly Hinrich) but this is what they said about Skiles and Tim Thomas, which is pertinent to this thread. Remember, this is impartial writer 

Scott Skiles. Really, he couldn't have found 25 minutes a game for Tim Thomas this season? He wouldn't have fit in with Chicago's style of play? Really? Wouldn't have helped in the Miami series? Really? Seriously?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Phoenix doesn't have the personnel or the desire to shut teams down. They beat people by outscoring them, plain and simple. Guys like Brown and Odom (and Kaman and Brand) are going to feast on the Suns. Thomas is offsetting and minimizing the damage by putting up big points in those individual matchups. And he'll be even more successful vs. Kaman or Brand -- they're even more reluctant to leave the paint. Thomas will either make a ton of jumpers vs. those guys, or he'll help his team by getting a big shotblocker/rebounder out of the paint.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's definately true that TT would have been the largest scoring threat on the team, and on with no large scorers, that could have helped some regardless of the fact that he is not much of a post scorer. 

I'm just a bit sceptical of judging the value of players based on their performance as members of the Suns.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I can't.
> 
> The only time I remember that he was even on the roster is when these threads pop up from time to time (curiously never when the Bulls are going 12-2, for example).
> 
> ...



ok this WHOLE post is just full of complete BS.just how the hell do you know weither or not TT would have or wouldnt have been back next season? i dont know that and no other man woman or child on the face of the earth does..TT is a big bodied scorer,and gee lets see we are the thinest at the big bodied scored pos now arent we?

every one likes to talk about how TT faded after he got his money,well do any of you remember how OH played so well last year only to suck *** after he got 10 times more from us then anyone else would have given him?or how about how badly your lover boy suck *** song?or what about TC?seems its ok with SS if these players suck *** on the court WHEN IT MATTERS just as long as they give it their all in practice.something is wrong here but it seems im the only one that can see it..

and why the hell is it ok to take a FULL nba season to "evaluate" your players?is it just me or doesnt it seem a little incongruous that the coach and GM's whole mission statement is "Play hard,100%,never quit"yet they take a full year to just "evaluate" the team?HELL thats why TT was sent home"supposely"so why hasnt Pax and SS got the boot?

if you look back at everything pax has done,youll find that it all looks fine and dandy on paper,but on the court NOTHING he has done has been WOW..everyone gives him so much credit for drafting great well in 03 @ #7 and needing a PG after jwill went down you had 2 picks TJ Ford or KH and both were SAFE picks.
in 04 @ # 3 once again another safe pick with a mindset of moving JC who else at the SG spot was better then Ben?
@ #7 that year what ya know another safe pick takein the close #2 high school kid behind LJ.
@ #39 anyone that seen Chris Duhon play at duke knew the kid was a baller,and the only reason(s) he didnt go sooner was because his back probs and his shot,so as a 39th pick he was a VERY VERY VERY SAFE PICK.

lets look at trades now,every trade(aside from the deng deal) pax has made has been about CAP SPACE duhhh,well thats great to have cap space if we were having a FA class like the class of 2000,but being as the best player in this class is Al Harrington(who we could of had for next to nothing a few years back) we in effect traded artest,mercer,Brad miller,Jrose,ECurry,JCraw,Donyell Marshall,AD,TT,OH,JYD(am i missing anyone else?)for Al Harrington,some other FA maybe Gooden and a rookie now does that sound like all this cap saving trades were worth it?

now lets look at SS.the little more then 3/4 of a season that he had controll of this team B4 BG,LD and duhon come in the team changed zero,zip not one bit from when Bill Cartwright had it.then after the trio came in we made the playoffs and everyone credits this to Skiles coaching rather then adding great players into the mix,yet EC and TC didnt make any kind of improvments.i see the record improvment being more inline with adding the trio then skiles being a good coach,and see the lack of improvment from his key players as the truth about what kinda coach he really is after all if you added that trio to ANY team in the NBA i bet you see a huge improvement out of that team.

now im going to hear about how skiles has this team playing such great Dfence,how they "get after it " in every game well do you think this is the effect of having good Defensive players or skiles coaching?well if SS is such a great coach then why hasnt TC,Deng,KH and the team as a whole improved?

i would be ok with SS if the "jib" and doghouse ideals went away he would then improve as a coach 10fold,and im ok with pax being a LITTLEBIT on the safe side and wanting hard working players,but to not make "COLD CALLS" at the deadline and pissing away players like TT is somthing im not looking for in a GM of my FAV team...


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

My eyes, my eyes, ze goggles do nothing!


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

bulls said:


> and why the hell is it ok to take a FULL nba season to "evaluate" your players?


Maybe you should ask Nocioni.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

bulls said:


> we in effect traded artest,mercer,Brad miller,Jrose,ECurry,JCraw,Donyell Marshall,AD,TT,OH,JYD(am i missing anyone else?)for Al Harrington,some other FA maybe Gooden and a rookie now does that sound like all this cap saving trades were worth it?


But the players that Paxson traded away were Rose, Curry, Crawford, Marshall, Davis, Thomas, and Williams. Only one player in that entire group averaged more than 30 minutes a game this season, and Crawford did it on the second worst team in the NBA. So what's the problem?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bulls said:


> ok this WHOLE post is just full of complete BS.just how the hell do you know weither or not TT would have or wouldnt have been back next season? i dont know that and no other man woman or child on the face of the earth does..TT is a big bodied scorer,and gee lets see we are the thinest at the big bodied scored pos now arent we?
> 
> every one likes to talk about how TT faded after he got his money,well do any of you remember how OH played so well last year only to suck *** after he got 10 times more from us then anyone else would have given him?or how about how badly your lover boy suck *** song?or what about TC?seems its ok with SS if these players suck *** on the court WHEN IT MATTERS just as long as they give it their all in practice.something is wrong here but it seems im the only one that can see it..
> 
> ...


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

Qwst25 said:


> Maybe you should ask Nocioni.


your not seeing my point,why is it that the player that are allowed to play on this team they have to give the team 100% in everything bulls related,yet the management can just sit back for a full year and "evaluate"?




Qwst25 said:


> But the players that Paxson traded away were Rose, Curry, Crawford, Marshall, Davis, Thomas, and Williams. Only one player in that entire group averaged more than 30 minutes a game this season, and Crawford did it on the second worst team in the NBA. So what's the problem?


so are you saying deng,Nocioni and gordon (who barly got 30mpg)all suck becuase of the lack of mpg they played?

i think the main prob with this whole cap savings stuff is that EVERYONE from pax right down to the fans are expecting this team AFTER the money and draft picks are spent to go from lower-mid half of the league to the top tier and i want to ask what if it doesnt?
what if we pick up the best FA's and draft the best player(s) we can yet that doesnt get us over the hump?
pax has set his standard so high that atleast 90% of the top 20-30 players in this league for one reason or another wouldnt qualify under his "JIB" standards so i HIGHLY doubt that we will see a blockbuster that gets us over the hump unless pax does alot of backpedaling..

if you just sit back and look at how our GM and coach run this team it almost seems its doomed to fail yet untill it does its made to look like roses..


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

bulls said:


> what if we pick up the best FA's and draft the best player(s) we can yet that doesnt get us over the hump?


Then I guess the Bulls will just have a young, good-but-not-great team that has personnel that you won't mind having your kids admire and emulate. Not a bad consolation prize.

Frankly, I don't find watching and reading about the misadventures and tantrums of spoiled, illiterate, borderline personalities very entertaining.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

bulls said:


> so are you saying deng,Nocioni and gordon (who barly got 30mpg)all suck becuase of the lack of mpg they played?


I'll clarify it for you:
Davis, 13 seasons in the NBA and now spends half the time on the bench.
Rose, 12 seasons in the NBA and now spends half the time on the bench. 
Marshall, 12 seasons in the NBA and now spends half the time on the bench.
Williams, is retired.
Thomas, 9 seasons in the NBA and only once has he averaged more than 30 mpg, he usually has a comfortable place on the bench.
Curry, 5 seasons in the NBA and still spends half of each game sitting down.

I just don't understand why you are so mad about losing these players. I guess I am just a little confused, thats all.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

bulls said:


> why is it that the player that are allowed to play on this team they have to give the team 100% in everything bulls related,yet the management can just sit back for a full year and "evaluate"?


Two months ago I was hired for a job at the Library of Congress. But it's only a "six month" temporary job. Once those six months are up, management evaluates my performance and decides whether or not to give me the job permanently. I give 100% because that's what I'm paid to do, and I want to keep the job.

The regular NBA season runs for "six months" not a full year. If the Bulls management had decided to stop evaluating after one month, Sweatney would be seeing a bit of pay raise, and Gordon would have been shown the door. Evaluating takes time. Managing an NBA team is no different then managing a business.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

bulls said:


> if you just sit back and look at how our GM and coach run this team it almost seems its doomed to fail


So apparently a "work ethic" isn't much of a priority to you.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Scott Skiles. Really, he couldn't have found 25 minutes a game for Tim Thomas this season? He wouldn't have fit in with Chicago's style of play? Really? Wouldn't have helped in the Miami series? Really? Seriously?


Given his lack of effort in practice and on defense, if Tim Thomas were given 25 minutes a game by Skiles, it would have wasted the merit of all the hard work and hustle his would-be teammates have shown throughout the season, because it would have meant that it's not necessary to work hard in order to get playing minutes. And that would have destroyed the culture of this ball club. Sure, Thomas would probably have been the leading scorer on the Bulls, but he would have created a ripple effect on the rest of the team on not working hard, and the Bulls would have had a record on par with the Knicks.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bulls said:


> if you just sit back and look at how our GM and coach run this team it almost seems its doomed to fail yet untill it does its made to look like roses..


Oh. 

So if I look at how they run it, and see that in *one season* they turned *the biggest laughingstock team in all of major professional sports* into a 2 time playoff team, with the second youngest roster in the league, with the youngest roster of all playoff teams, with $15-20 million in capspace, a high lottery pick, and the #16 pick in the draft then I am to ignore the current and deceptive "roses" and look past that to the inevitable failure?

Ya gotta go with what works for ya, so good luck with that. My outlook is a bit different though.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Given that the Bulls could exchange draft picks with New York next season, what would your reaction be like if they sign Tim Thomas this offseason (forget cap situation, salaries)?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Please please please, don't let a few numbers fool you into thinking Tim Thomas is some savior. For the millionth time, the Suns system is an up-tempo, stat-inflating system that makes average players look better than they are. Steve Nash and D'Antoni are primarily responsible for this, and having verstatile studs like Marion and Diaw only help the system. It allows average groupies like Raja Bell, Barbosa, James Jones, Eddie House, and yes, Tim Thomas, to put up numbers.
> 
> Tim Thomas is athletic and he's a good long-distance shooter (like that's what the Bulls need more of), but he's also a poor defender and plays like he's 8 inches shorter than he really is. That's about all he offers, and yet that's all you need to excel in the Suns' system. And here's an interesting fact, the Suns were 36-17 before getting TT (68% winning percentage), but 18-11 after getting him (62%). Not to mention they nearly got bounced in the 1st round (and still might, though unlikely at this point). TT is no savior, and I really don't think he would've given anything we don't already have, other than a bad attitude.


That had mostly to do with the fact Kurt Thomas went down with injury right before we picked Tim up. The fact we won 62% with no bigs whatsoever is amazing.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Maybe I'm missing the boat too... but weren't the Suns just playing for their lives against a 7 seed? Isn't Lamar Odom scoring 20 points a game against them after averaging 14 in the regular season? And yet Tim Thomas would have been the answer to our woes in the interior?


Since Kurt Thomas went down both the Lakers and Suns went 18-11. This wasn't a normal 2-7 seed series. To add the Suns had to go up against a coach that had never lost in the first round in his entire coaching career. Tim Thomas was the savior to the Suns, both in game 1 (just take a look at the box score) and game 6. 

Without Tim the Suns would be fishing right now.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> We aren't the Suns. He would not have played the 5 spot in Skiles system. Absolutely no freakin' way. D'Antoni doesn't care about defensive matchups. He plays Diaw at center sometimes for cryin' out loud. *He rotates guys based on offense only.* Skiles is, for the most part, the exact opposite.


This is absolutely not true. The only reason he had Thomas and Diaw play the 5 is because they had no one else. The only alternative was Pat Burke, who isn't really some defensive stalwart. Amare and Kurt going down with injuries changed everything, D'Antoni was forced to do what he did... and he made it work.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Qwst25 said:


> So apparently a "work ethic" isn't much of a priority to you.


We have max work ethic. We just lost to a team with playoff caliber work ethic AND a lot more talent. 

*When are some of you going to get it. Talent and work ethic are not polarizing "either or" propositions! 

You

Need

Both!!!!!!*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Qwst25 said:


> Maybe you should ask Nocioni.


That's funny... I'm not a "Pax" guy and I could have told you he was the best player on the team this season from day one. He's so good that if you can get a decent center and a draft pick for Deng, you take it.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> We have max work ethic. We just lost to a team with playoff caliber work ethic AND a lot more talent.
> 
> When are some of you going to get it. Talent and work ethic are not polarizing "either or" propositions!
> 
> ...


And that is why Tim Thomas didn't belong on the Bulls.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> And that is why Tim Thomas didn't belong on the Bulls.


It flies right over your head... which is planted firmly in Paxsons'... lol nevermind. Yeah, Tim Thomas didn't give us more TALENT, you're right. How do you manage to breath?


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> It flies right over your head... which is planted firmly in Paxsons'... lol nevermind. Yeah, Tim Thomas didn't give us more TALENT, you're right. How do you manage to breath?


Tim Thomas would have given the Bulls more talent but have lowered the team's work ethic. You said that championship playoff teams need both talent and work ethic. Paxson and Skiles also wants both qualities in their individual players not just in the team cumulatively. That's why Tim Thomas didn't belong on the Bulls.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Qwst25 said:


> I'll clarify it for you:
> Davis, 13 seasons in the NBA and now spends half the time on the bench.
> Rose, 12 seasons in the NBA and now spends half the time on the bench.
> Marshall, 12 seasons in the NBA and now spends half the time on the bench.
> ...


Now I know Curry and Davis aren't saviors in any way, but C'mon guys. We could have used these guys, and all we got from them were potentially good players and Sweets. I still have high hopes for next season, although I still wonder "what could've been" with Curry and Davis. They did take away Chandler's faults and maximize his strengths, so you can't say they weren't helpful. And C'mon, if we could get both a healthy Davis and an in-shape Curry back on this team, you're telling me you wouldn't bite at the chance to do it.

We could potentially bring AD back if he's good to go next season, and Curry is probably going to get traded in a "blockbuster" deal with another big. I'm sure Isiah is going to try ANYTHING to get the Knicks to work, although it won't.

I have no idea why I brought this back up again, I'm just saying a health AD and an in-shape Curry beats OH,Songo,Allen,Sweets and Schenscher anyday. (And that's all of them combined!) lol

Oh well, I'll be waiting this summer for what Pax WILL do with the picks and FA money. Let's hope for 50 wins and over. No excuses this time, right guys! :biggrin:


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Oh.
> 
> So if I look at how they run it, and see that in *one season* they turned *the biggest laughingstock team in all of major professional sports* into a 2 time playoff team, with the second youngest roster in the league, with the youngest roster of all playoff teams, with $15-20 million in capspace, a high lottery pick, and the #16 pick in the draft then I am to ignore the current and deceptive "roses" and look past that to the inevitable failure?
> 
> Ya gotta go with what works for ya, so good luck with that. My outlook is a bit different though.


Boo-yah. Positive outlook people.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Tim Thomas would have given the Bulls more talent but have lowered the team's work ethic. You said that championship playoff teams need both talent and work ethic. Paxson and Skiles also wants both qualities in their individual players not just in the team cumulatively. That's why Tim Thomas didn't belong on the Bulls.


You don't get it. When you're scoring a 100 on jib, you can afford a player like Thomas. The organizations that contend for championships learn how to get the best out of players like Thomas. You're so blinded by wanting to have players that play like you had to play in high school to "overcome all the obstacles" that you don't see that.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

PowerWoofer said:


> Now I know Curry and Davis aren't saviors in any way, but C'mon guys. We could have used these guys, and all we got from them were potentially good players and Sweets. I still have high hopes for next season, although I still wonder "what could've been" with Curry and Davis. They did take away Chandler's faults and maximize his strengths, so you can't say they weren't helpful. And C'mon, if we could get both a healthy Davis and an in-shape Curry back on this team, you're telling me you wouldn't bite at the chance to do it.
> 
> We could potentially bring AD back if he's good to go next season, and Curry is probably going to get traded in a "blockbuster" deal with another big. I'm sure Isiah is going to try ANYTHING to get the Knicks to work, although it won't.
> 
> ...


Dude, if there is one thing we know, and I mean KNOW.. it's that Eddy Curry would have made NO contribution to this team whatsoever. AND we also know that Tyson Chandler is an 82 game full-time center that will lead us to 47 wins and if you don't like it you much not like things like logic and facts.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> You don't get it. When you're scoring a 100 on jib, you can afford a player like Thomas. The organizations that contend for championships learn how to get the best out of players like Thomas. You're so blinded by wanting to have players that play like you had to play in high school to "overcome all the obstacles" that you don't see that.


And you're so blinded by the hate you have for Paxson that you can't even see the main reason why Thomas was castrated, youth. The team might be the jibbiest of them all, but they are so young that they'll be influenced by veterans, good or bad. So why take the risk of having someone like Thomas undo all the hard work you've done the year before just so you can get a couple more wins this year. And yes, it would of been a totally different situation if we were a contender, but alas we are not.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

step said:


> And you're so blinded by the hate you have for Paxson that you can't even see the main reason why Thomas was castrated, youth. The team might be the jibbiest of them all, but they are so young that they'll be influenced by veterans, good or bad. So why take the risk of having someone like Thomas undo all the hard work you've done the year before just so you can get a couple more wins this year. And yes, it would of been a totally different situation if we were a contender, but alas we are not.


 :clap:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

step said:


> And you're so blinded by the hate you have for Paxson that you can't even see the main reason why Thomas was castrated, youth. The team might be the jibbiest of them all, but they are so young that they'll be influenced by veterans, good or bad. So why take the risk of having someone like Thomas undo all the hard work you've done the year before just so you can get a couple more wins this year. And yes, it would of been a totally different situation if we were a contender, but alas we are not.


You are so blinded by fanboy Vito love for Paxson that you actually buy the "he'll pollute our core" argument. If our players can be so easily polluted, they are mentally worthless. Players who can be "ruined" by Tim Thomas, then they'll NEVER win a title. Put any player who could be ruined up against Jo Jo White or Joe Dumars and I'll show you a player who just got buked.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> You are so blinded by fanboy Vito love for Paxson that you actually buy the "he'll pollute our core" argument. If our players can be so easily polluted, they are mentally worthless. Players who can be "ruined" by Tim Thomas, then they'll NEVER win a title. Put any player who could be ruined up against Jo Jo White or Joe Dumars and I'll show you a player who just got buked.


I guess one can ask über-superstar Allen "Practice!? We talkin' practice!" Iverson why his team has been treading water ever since 2001.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> I guess one can ask über-superstar Allen "Practice!? We talkin' practice!" Iverson why his team has been treading water ever since 2001.


Ahh don't mistake sportscenter's definition of a star or superstar for mine. Iverson, McGrady, Pierce, etc. = yawn, yawn, yawn. James and Wade are players I like. Duncan, O'neal before he turned 80. The list is very small. Other "stars" hurt their team more than they help.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

This is truly amazing.

Tim Thomas is reaching Jamal Crawford/Eddy Curry-status around here.

Amazing.


And what a surprise, k4e is clamoring for TT.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Other "stars" hurt their team more than they help.


By you saying that, I just pigeonholed you into admitting that Tim Thomas would have hurt the Bulls. :banana:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

There's the Matrix we all know and love:



> It flies right over your head... which is planted firmly in Paxsons'... lol nevermind. Yeah, Tim Thomas didn't give us more TALENT, you're right. How do you manage to breath?





> You're so blinded by wanting to have players that play like you had to play in high school to "overcome all the obstacles" that you don't see that.


Yeah dude, you changed a lot.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)




----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> By you saying that, I just pigeonholed you into admitting that Tim Thomas would have hurt the Bulls. :banana:


Not really. You think you get me into saying a lot of things that I'm only really saying in your fantasy world. I'm talking from the perspective of who you are BUILDING around when I talk about Wade and Lebron and how they'll always have their teams in a better position than ours. Thomas is a periphery guy. A guy that we simply weren't good enough to cut when we already were going to be paying him. That isn't "Jamal/Eddy" status or whatever that a-clown said at all. That's.. WE'RE ALREADY PAYING A GUY EITHER WAY, let's get something out of him since we aren't a 60 or 50 win team. I don't even consider Thomas a star as a matter of fact. I never said "keep Thomas and make him our featured offensive option." That would be retarded.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

......


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


>


Seconded


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Zzzzzz. It must be nice to take a moral high stance and try to drum up lynch-mob justice on a message board. What a life. Excuse me while I go back to mine.


A bold statement for someone who posts on this board as much as everyone else here.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*craps into hand, throws at everyone in room*

Touché.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> A bold statement for someone who posts on this board as much as everyone else here.


>>>>


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

....


----------



## Jo Jo English (Sep 24, 2003)

Vintage said:


> This is truly amazing.
> 
> Tim Thomas is reaching Jamal Crawford/Eddy Curry-status around here.
> 
> ...



There is nothing amazing or suprising about any of this.

Any excuse to dirty up Bulls managment is good enough.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> ......


It must be so frustrating for you to have to delete your own posts for fear of being yourself.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> It must be so frustrating for you to have to delete your own posts for fear of being yourself.


zzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

OK, Pip needs to lay off the "fanboy" and "blinded" and "fantasy world" belittling comments.

Everyone else needs to lay off the "Same old Matrix" stuff.


Lets get back to whatever the point is supposed to be with this thread. If there is really anything else to say. Which there probably isn't.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

:biggrin:

Ok, I need to get off using it, BUT TB1 to me Paxson's fans have some good arguments that they won't concede on. And those are fine. And then there is "Tim Thomas needed to be waived when we ALREADY had to pay him (and then insert your reason)" and to me it just becomes the equivalent of "the Brand trade wasn't THAT bad of a move for Krause." I'm sorry, but some arguments are awesome, and then there are a few on BOTH sides that just amount to "I'll never admit I'm wrong about anything no matter what." Hence the amazing frustration. 

AND at the same time, this was probably one thread where the "same ole matrix" stuff was warranted. I can take it when it's warranted. When it bothers me is "you have a great argument and I'm getting snowballed, and you've broken no rule even implicitly, but I'll play the Matrix card cause I'm out of ammo" or, roughly 95% of the time.

Great talk gentlemen.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> :biggrin:
> 
> Ok, I need to get off using it, BUT TB1 to me Paxson's fans have some good arguments that they won't concede on. And those are fine. And then there is "Tim Thomas needed to be waived when we ALREADY had to pay him (and then insert your reason)" and to me it just becomes the equivalent of "the Brand trade wasn't THAT bad of a move for Krause." I'm sorry, but some arguments are awesome, and then there are a few on BOTH sides that just amount to "I'll never admit I'm wrong about anything no matter what." Hence the amazing frustration.
> 
> ...


I understand where your coming from Pip but I think Skiles and a lot of coaches like to do the old carrot and the stick routine, in other words, practice hard and you will get your playing time, keep your nose clean, don't whine, keep practcicing and playing hard and you will be rewarded. Thomas wouldn't have practiced hard enough with this team to ever see much playing time and if Skiles did play him it would have upset the whole status quo because then you have younger players asking, "Why is that guy playing when I practiced/played harder than he did?" and thats sort of an impossible question to answer. Younger players tune out the coach, the whole carrot and stick model gets demolished. Thomas has some talent and I think everyone here will acknowledge that. The problem is he wasn't willing to get after it enough to set an example for our youngsters IMO and SKiles& Pax don't want our young players thinking they have a double standard. My main complaint is that TT wasn't traded along with draft picks while we could have used his big salary to help offset a deal for someone.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i locked this thread because there is no longer any real discussion occuring, just baiting and attacking and that's not how we do things.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I received a request to re-open this thread because of the way Thomas has been performing in the playoffs. I am doing so but will be keeping a close eye on this thread, remember, no baiting just good basketball discussion or it will be locked up again quick!

Thanks!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I asked the mods to open it, if only to prevent TT discussion from creeping into other threads. Especially after he had another big performance in a critical game, and especially since it looks like the Suns will be going to the final four.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I asked the mods to open it, if only to prevent TT discussion from creeping into other threads. Especially after he had another big performance in a critical game, and especially since it looks like the Suns will be going to the final four.


Raja Bells shot was amazing.

Team Phoenix > sum of their parts


And Thomas seems to be having fun. It's good to see. I like what D'Antoni has done with them.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

So...would Thomas have played as well on the Nets, and would they still be playing if he had signed with them?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Great performance tonight by Tim. Really stepped up and helped his weary team shut the door on the feisty Clippers.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Thomas has a big steal late leading to a Phoenix 3 and ices the game with 2 FTs as the Suns shock the Mavericks in Game 1 of the West finals and snatch away home-court advantage.

It's somewhat unreal that Phoenix could go to the Finals w/o Amare Stoudemire. Who would have thought that possible?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Thomas has a big steal late leading to a Phoenix 3 and ices the game with 2 FTs as the Suns shock the Mavericks in Game 1 of the West finals and snatch away home-court advantage.
> 
> It's somewhat unreal that Phoenix could go to the Finals w/o Amare Stoudemire. Who would have thought that possible?


So many things about Phoenix are blowing my mind. They have no center, their power forward is 6'7. They play average defense. Good God.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

The game is changing...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Thomas has a big steal late leading to a Phoenix 3 and ices the game with 2 FTs as the Suns shock the Mavericks in Game 1 of the West finals and snatch away home-court advantage.
> 
> It's somewhat unreal that Phoenix could go to the Finals w/o Amare Stoudemire. Who would have thought that possible?


Phoenix went to Thomas late in the game when it was all on the line. He finished with 20 points, and hit a few clutch shots at the end. He also missed a few.

What was evident is that the Suns clearly took advantage of his size and ran plays for him to get good looks.

Suns lost, tho. Game was closer than the score, due to the parade to the free throw line at the end.

In DALLAS.


----------

