# Tim Thomas discusses his time in Chicago



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

O.K. Here it is. Somebody was going to post it eventually.

Lets try to discuss it without anybody getting snarky and without the typical baggage these threads seem to carry with them.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...1426.column?coll=chi-sportscolumnistfront-hed



> PHOENIX -- The Phoenix Suns, cruising along with the NBA's fourth-best record, were in trouble Thursday night.
> 
> Star point guard Steve Nash was out, and his primary backup, Leandro Barbosa, left for the hospital with a groin injury before the game against the defending champion San Antonio Spurs. Kurt Thomas remained out with a stress fracture and, of course, Amare Stoudemire has yet to return from preseason knee surgery.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

a) No, you aren't better than Deng or Nocioni
b) Maybe it's the constant justificaiton of everything, and the excuse making, that they object to?
c) It's a simple formula. Work hard, and you get rewarded. Your role early in the season was no different to Malik Allen's. He's now starting and you were left sitting. Now how did that come about?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

At the end of the day, I'm sure TT is happier being on a team that has a chance to actually accomplish something of value this season.

The Bulls organization appears happy with how it is operating things.

I guess both parties consider themselves winners.

He can still play at a high level, that much is certain. The "good teams" called him immediately after he was available.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

This is the part I found interesting:



> "Then my wife is sideswiped by a cab in New York and I go home to check out the family, which is the most important thing. The next thing I know, I get a call *and am told to stay home or come back if I want.* You have to read through the lines on that one.


So he had a choice whether to rejoin the team and he declined to do so?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

In general I tend to support Paxson and Skiles with what they are trying to do with the Bulls. But the handling of Tim Thomas was not good management or coaching. I don't have to know the details of what went on, the end results have the mark of incompetent personnel management.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> O.K. Here it is. Somebody was going to post it eventually.
> 
> Lets try to discuss it without anybody getting snarky and without the typical baggage these threads seem to carry with them.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...1426.column?coll=chi-sportscolumnistfront-hed


Pretty solid confirmation of what the PaxSkiles naysayers have been saying. PaxSkiles can only work with Jib-riffic players. Other teams can work with both. IMHO - We are at a 20-40% disadvantage because of that. Even if Pax and Skiles are better than average at their jobs otherwise, they turn into below average b/c of this issue.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I found this quote interesting, from the winning coach.....



> Even D'Antoni, in saying the Suns checked out Thomas and heard only positives about his character, admitted there were questions about his practice habits.
> 
> *"Practice is practice,"* D'Antoni said. "Maybe we won't get [his best], but we don't have any practices [because of injuries and so many games] in March. *We're not worried."*


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Tim Thomas is a fool. He is not entitled to playing time. What a dickhead.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Certainly the Bulls have a different opinion, and veterans like Adrian Griffin and Antonio Davis last season, Othella Harrington and Darius Songaila, have been positive about their time with the team. So it seems there always will remain a mystery about Thomas and the Bulls...


And that, my friends, is the only real FACT out there. 

The rest is conjecture and supposition. I wish he and his team well. Most fans are overjoyed with the production we get from the players we have at the three spot.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

We knew all this though.

I respect the organizations stand to FIGHT for your position...NOTHING is giving to you...Really I don't want a player like that on my team...star or not.

I like hard workers...Cause I'm a hard worker...I can't identify with players that expect the world when they don't wanna work for it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Pretty solid confirmation of what the PaxSkiles naysayers have been saying. PaxSkiles can only work with Jib-riffic players. Other teams can work with both. IMHO - We are at a 20-40% disadvantage because of that. Even if Pax and Skiles are better than average at their jobs otherwise, they turn into below average b/c of this issue.


I don't know if I'd attach a number to it or even say for sure it makes them "below average", but I think it did in this particular case.

You don't trade Tim Thomas like he's Malik Allen because he's a significantly better player. Maybe not a star, maybe not a world beater, and you don't have to treat him like that. I agree there. But you don't treat him like Malik Allen either... like he's a totally worthless scrub who has to prove everything. Because he doesn't. He's can be a useful player... far from perfect both on court and off, but treating him like a lepper doesn't seem to have a lot of benefit to me.

Nor do I understand exactly why the conversation keeps coming returning to Deng and Noc. Those guys were/are going to get minutes even if Thomas got minutes. 

It's not like it's a huge deal... I'm not calling for Skiles' head or anything (and I do think it's largely the result of the chip on Skiles' shoulder and nothing else), but it's not a good thing and it moderately hurt us this year. 

Skiles, as purely a coach, is smart and flexible and like a guy like D'Antoni, would have figured out a rotation that would have made it work. I have no problems with his long-run game-based evaluations of players. I do have a problem with his knee-jerk "cut of your jib" based evaluations, and I think they do moderate harm.

This is probably a good plate to point out that I actually don't think Paxson has all that much to do with it regarding Thomas. I think there are several instances this year where they may have disagreed on ways to go. Just a hunch on my part based on reading between the lines in a few places, but my guess is that although they discuss things and try to do what the other wants, there are a few places where they've wanted different things.


----------



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

Honestly, NO ONE on this board knows what happened. It kinda pisses me off that people are saying he didn't work hard when there was no evidence other than maybe past history to show that he didn't. I don't really understand why people are taking Skiles' story and running with it.

This all seemed like the case of the insider (Skiles) never having wanted to let an outsider (Tim) in. Of course, the outsider's story won't be considered as serious or having any credibility because of his reputation.

If I had to believe anyone's story on a logical basis, it would be Tim Thomas, because 1) there's absolutely no evidence that he DID NOT work hard. It seems like the exact opposite was said by Paxson early on. I don't recall Pax ever downtalking him. 2) Skiles has had problems with star players or "star-minded" players, such as one of the premier point guards of the game that actually did play defense 3) Skiles has shown to have favorites, emphasizing team play when his favorite guys can't carry the load 4) Skiles does have a history of acting without very clear motives in general --- the rotations from last year, and umm, look no further than him constantly getting the ball during crunch time to anyone OTHER than last year's Mr. 4th quarter.


----------



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

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> This is the part I found interesting:
> 
> "Then my wife is sideswiped by a cab in New York and I go home to check out the family, which is the most important thing. The next thing I know, I get a call and am told to stay home or come back if I want. You have to read through the lines on that one."
> 
> So he had a choice whether to rejoin the team and he declined to do so?


He's checking up on his family, and then all of a sudden, the powers that be we call Paxiles call to tell him to stay home. Oh, by the way, you can come back. . .really. . .umm. . .only if you want. 

Seems more like he's saying that Paxiles were searching for a way out from committing to him.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Honestly, NO ONE on this board knows what happened. It kinda pisses me off that people are saying he didn't work hard when there was no evidence other than maybe past history to show that he didn't. I don't really understand why people are taking Skiles' story and running with it.


Seems just as likely to take Timmy's story and run with it. Career underacheiver vs. bullheaded coach. Seems like both stories are sayign the same thing, anyway.



> If I had to believe anyone's story on a logical basis, it would be Tim Thomas, because 1) there's absolutely no evidence that he DID NOT work hard. It seems like the exact opposite was said by Paxson early on. I don't recall Pax ever downtalking him.


Which is a sign of class on Pax' part, not necessarily hard work on Tim's.



> 2) Skiles has had problems with star players or "star-minded" players, such as one of the premier point guards of the game that actually did play defense


I think you mean "star-minded" player -- singular. What has Jason Kidd ever won? What coach has Jason Kidd ever liked? Who else had ever had a problem with Skiles?



> 3) Skiles has shown to have favorites, emphasizing team play when his favorite guys can't carry the load


Seems like none of his players play as much as the star players on most other teams. Favorites? I think it's fair to keep a guy in the game who is being productive on at least one end of the floor. How many last shots has his "favorite" taken? Why wasn't his "favorite" inbounding the ball instead of "doghouse Ben" when Skiles said Ben was the best player at inbounding?



> 4) Skiles does have a history of acting without very clear motives in general --- the rotations from last year, and umm, look no further than him constantly getting the ball during crunch time to anyone OTHER than *last year's Mr. 4th quarter.*


We had a great coach last year. We should have kept him.

***! *****!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> 1) there's absolutely no evidence that he DID NOT work hard. It seems like the exact opposite was said by Paxson early on. I don't recall Pax ever downtalking him.


When word first broke that Thomas had been sent home, in one of the radio interviews Paxson expressly said that practice was *not* the issue here, even when he was pressed by the interviewer. 

It could be at that time that Paxson was still entertaining trade notions and didn't want to let a cat (if there was one) out of the bag, but it's equally easy to imagine the "he didn't practice" accusation as after-the-fact spin.

It's not about Deng or Nocioni, even if I think it's not at all outlandish for Tim Thomas to say that, right now, he's better than both. It's about Thomas and Sweetney, or Thomas and Harrington, or Thomas and Malik Allen. There were plenty of spare minutes at the 4 (especially), the 5, and even the 2 that could have gone to an established veteran player who has shown in the last week that he is without a question still able to contribute.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Hard to take the guy seriously when he claims he's better than Deng and Nocioni.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GB said:


> And that, my friends, is the only real FACT out there.
> 
> The rest is conjecture and supposition. I wish he and his team well. Most fans are overjoyed with the production we get from the players we have at the three spot.


Actually, the only fact is that our below average team didn't find a use for Thomas while he is playing a big role on an above average team.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> a) No, you aren't better than Deng or Nocioni
> b) Maybe it's the constant justificaiton of everything, and the excuse making, that they object to?
> c) It's a simple formula. Work hard, and you get rewarded. Your role early in the season was no different to Malik Allen's. He's now starting and you were left sitting. Now how did that come about?


Yeah Pax and Skiles are really laughing all the way to the bank at Thomas' expense. He's starting for a team that will be playing long after Hinrich, Deng and Noce have become bored with being home for the offseason. This is what I mean with Pax and Pax nation. The guy isn't good enough to play any role for US, a team that's what, 7 games under .500, but somehow he's magically good enough to start for a team that's probably going to be in the Western Conference Finals. But that's right. Paxson and Skiles know more than everyone. They're smarter than D'Antoni. D'Antoni and Karl could get SOMETHING out of Thomas. But we all know those guys don't know anything compared to Paxson and Skiles. Paxson and Skiles have proven NOTHING, and nothing even close to justifying their holier-than-thou attitude on everything.

Our formula is producing a team that isn't beating teams that DONT use our formula. Isn't it funny that the Suns are far and away better than us and they don't even HAVE MARCH PRACTICES. God you think all that lack of "hard work" would cause them to plummet in the standings. Or not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Hard to take the guy seriously when he claims he's better than Deng and Nocioni.


deng and chapu aren't world beaters , its not like he said he was better than kobe...by my count nocioni wouldn't start for any team in the division, and deng would start maybe for 2 at best and saying he starts ahead of peja is pushing it a bit , it could easily be none , seeing TT's impact in pho. he is producing and starting on a team deng and nocioni would never start for. i dont see how he could be slighted for having that opinion.


----------



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

Wynn said:


> Seems just as likely to take Timmy's story and run with it. Career underacheiver vs. bullheaded coach. Seems like both stories are sayign the same thing, anyway.


Perhaps it's a level-headed, devil's advocate response in response to the overrepresentation of the Skiles' side of the story.




> Which is a sign of class on Pax' part, not necessarily hard work on Tim's.


But then the point was that there is NO evidence to suggest that he didn't.



> I think you mean "star-minded" player -- singular. What has Jason Kidd ever won? What coach has Jason Kidd ever liked? Who else had ever had a problem with Skiles?


No star-minded players --- plural. As in players that have high self-esteem. I don't really want to spend time searching for little tidbits online, because those histories are not as important.




> Seems like none of his players play as much as the star players on most other teams. Favorites? I think it's fair to keep a guy in the game who is being productive on at least one end of the floor. How many last shots has his "favorite" taken? Why wasn't his "favorite" inbounding the ball instead of "doghouse Ben" when Skiles said Ben was the best player at inbounding?


Well, then we should dedicate a pick to finding a new best inbounder, shouldn't we ?

I don't recall Skiles ever saying that. But how does it make sense that someone who is short, is apparently not good at making decisions, and to top it off is the best shooter, and clutchest is inbounding the ball ?

But seriously, watch how many times "Doghouse Ben" [I like that name BTW, and maybe I will adapt it now] even gets the ball. That has something to do with on-court dynamics, i.e. the players, as well as coaching. He often 




> We had a great coach last year. We should have kept him.
> 
> ***! *****!


We had a great lineup and strategery to complement last year. We should've kept that.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> In general I tend to support Paxson and Skiles with what they are trying to do with the Bulls. But the handling of Tim Thomas was not good management or coaching. I don't have to know the details of what went on, the end results have the mark of incompetent personnel management.


You hit the nail on the head. This is classic "Dick Jauron - I can put a fullback at kick returner if I want to. Because it's the best move? Nope. Just to show you that I CAN, and that I can stick to my way whether you like it or not." I don't care what your VALUES are. A team like the Bulls had no business on earth declining any and all contributions from a player of the caliber of Tim Thomas. Now, it's fine in the case of Eddie Robinson, who you know isn't gonna play for anyone else. But when Tim shows that he can play for a team like Phoenix, it makes Paxson look REALLY bad.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Was he really expressing an interest to start at CENTER?

If so, my view goes from "the right move, all things considered" to "dubious", depending on whether or not he could play center at all.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Pretty solid confirmation of what the PaxSkiles naysayers have been saying. PaxSkiles can only work with Jib-riffic players. Other teams can work with both. IMHO - We are at a 20-40% disadvantage because of that. Even if Pax and Skiles are better than average at their jobs otherwise, they turn into below average b/c of this issue.


Ding, ding, ding! I couldn't have said it any better. I guess maybe some of us DID know that Paxson writes certain types of players off early in the game.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> deng and chapu aren't world beaters , its not like he said he was better than kobe...by my count nocioni wouldn't start for any team in the division, and deng would start maybe for 2 at best and saying he starts ahead of peja is pushing it a bit , it could easily be none , seeing TT's impact in pho. he is producing and starting on a team deng and nocioni would never start for. i dont see how he could be slighted for having that opinion.


I think we've all seen that it is impossible to compare numbers on the suns to anywhere else. More fair would be to compare what he's done on the Knicks.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> What has Jason Kidd ever won?


The NBA Eastern Conference, twice.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

smARTmouf said:


> We knew all this though.
> 
> I respect the organizations stand to FIGHT for your position...NOTHING is giving to you...Really I don't want a player like that on my team...star or not.
> 
> *I like hard workers...Cause I'm a hard worker*...I can't identify with players that expect the world when they don't wanna work for it.


This is exactly what I've ALWAYS said about Chicago fandom. They allow the way that THEY have to act at their job to dictate their stance on Chicago sports. I really don't care about doing it a certain way. I want to do it the WINNING way. This team IMO will never be a top flight team because of this issue. There are guys, LIKE THOMAS, who other teams are more than happy to work with, instead of against. And once they take that proactive stance, they get RESULTS from guys we won't even look at (because of our "young core" which has no one special and IMO is a joke when referred to as a "young core," like they're friggin MJ and Scottie or even Dumars and Isiah or something). And these teams get results whether or not they have a bunch of good soldier "company men" working for them.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I think we've all seen that it is impossible to compare numbers on the suns to anywhere else. More fair would be to compare what he's done on the Knicks.


in 95 games as a knick

28 min. 13 points 44% fg. 41% 3pt. 80% ft. 3.7 reb. 1.5 ast 0.7 st 0.2 bl. 1.7 turnovers.

better than chapu and about even with deng's contributions to the bulls


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> You don't *trade* Tim Thomas like he's Malik Allen because he's a significantly better player. Maybe not a star, maybe not a world beater, and you don't have to treat him like that. I agree there. *But you don't treat him like Malik Allen either... like he's a totally worthless scrub who has to prove everything.* Because he doesn't. He's can be a useful player... far from perfect both on court and off, but treating him like a lepper doesn't seem to have a lot of benefit to me.



i think you meant "treat"?

in any case, i don't actually see the bulls treating malik allen "like a scrub" who had to prove "everything". he, like everyone else on the team, had to earn playing time. that's just where this team is at this point. and why should tim thomas warrant _any special treatment_ whatsoever? because of his reputation? that's laughable. i can read through the lines too, tim. i think you are full of yourself!

and based on some earlier quotes from thomas about how he thought "i should be playing 35 minutes" no matter what, tells me all i need to know about his sense of entitlement. 

that's nice.

and i agree, mike, i don't think this really had anything to do with Pax, at the end of the day it was about skiles not wanting tim thomas. their relationship has been described as "cold". neither was willing to back down, and neither was willing to make it work. it was a two way street. 

at the end of the day i don't really give two ****s what tim thomas thinks or does or says.

i'm glad the bulls chose the development of deng (who is SPECIAL) and nocioni over a fugazy like TT.

i wish him all the best in phoenix. bygones and all that. whatever. 



just my silly little opinion.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Actually, the only fact is that our below average team didn't find a use for Thomas while he is playing a big role on an above average team.


he's played a whopping four games for the sun. how is that a big role exactly? it's not like they got where they are today thanks to the services of tim thomas!

:laugh:

just trying to keep a little perspective.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Who is the SF for the Phoenix Suns?

Is he better than Tim Thomas?

How on earth is Thomas starting and playing heavy minutes?

Its been a rapid descent into developing young players mode from winning games/trying to lock up home court in the 1st round mode.


----------



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

mizenkay said:


> and i agree, mike, i don't think this really had anything to do with Pax, at the end of the day it was about skiles not wanting tim thomas. their relationship has been described as "cold". neither was willing to back down, and neither was willing to make it work. it was a two way street.


But it's more the coach's responsibility to make sure that he can put his own ego aside and get what he can out of the players. That's why the coach is the coach.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who is the SF for the Phoenix Suns?
> 
> Is he better than Tim Thomas?
> 
> How on earth is Thomas starting and playing heavy minutes?


Injuries.

And, based on last night's performance, if they lose Steve Nash, they're very, very, average.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> But it's more the coach's responsibility to make sure that he can put his own ego aside and get what he can out of the players. That's why the coach is the coach.


Players and coaches always have issues. See Larry Brown. See Phil Jackson. See Jerry Sloan. 
See Bryan Scott. See Nat McMillan.


----------



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

narek said:


> Players and coaches always have issues. See Larry Brown. See Phil Jackson. See Jerry Sloan.
> See Bryan Scott. See Nat McMillan.


No doubt about that, but you don't see any one of them (or at least Brown or Jackson) NOT playing key contributors because of personality clashes.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

narek said:


> Injuries.


No, not according to the coach.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/bask...ok_x.htm?csp=34



> Quote:
> Coach Mike D'Antoni said he opted to start Thomas in part because it would help space his 20 to 25 minutes with more rest as he gets into NBA shape. He played 32 minutes.
> 
> "Eventually, this is what we were to going to get to anyway," D'Antoni said of Thomas starting.





Lots of very, very average teams in the NBA if that’s what losing to the World Champions labels you as.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Tim Thomas first reaction: Im better than Deng and Nocioni, so give me the minutes. 

What a joke...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

please, please, please would someone explain what the bull LOST by not indulging tim thomas. 

has he made ANY team he's played on any better?

has his rep afforded him elite (or any type of) FA status?

is anything about him (beside his contract) worth debating?

i just don't see why bull managment (who were stuck with said player) should be lambasted because of what another organization does or is doing. that organization has 2 all-stars currently. they can afford to "rent-a-baller" like thomas. guys like that surface every year. tony delk, jon barry, et al will always get deals because you can plug em' in, and let em do whatever, because when the final roster is tallied they won't be with your team for the long haul. if tim makes it 2 seasons with that squad i'll be VERY surprised. he's got an 11 ppg for his stinkin' career and NONE of the teams he's played for have done squat before, with or since.

i agree, why waste time with a guy who's just picking up a paycheck. you might as well lose with the guys you're building with than lose with a guy who doesn't really care one way or the other as long as you CTC.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who is the SF for the Phoenix Suns?
> 
> Is he better than Tim Thomas?
> 
> ...



What is the point that you are trying to make?

That Tim Thomas could have helped the Bulls? You're probably right.

*Was there the chance of his doing more harm than help?* Thats what needs to be weighed. Taken in a thin season-long slice where winning is the only ONLY! objective given consideration, the answer is no. 

Taken in an expansive view with all the factors that Skiles and Paxson have to consider, and the answer is not so concrete, neither is it so obviously yes. You and everyone else *have* to agree with that...even if you won't. 

So again, what is the point that you are arguing?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> please, please, please would someone explain what the bull LOST by not indulging tim thomas.


They lost a chance to give some frontline and backcourt minutes to a player who could have helped them win ballgames. 

Since this is being described universally as a bizarre event with no similar precedent in recent memory, how about explaining how this could have possibly hurt the Bulls? We're seven games under .500 with 21 to play -- if we'd kept Thomas on the roster, do you really think we would have been worse?

And if you're going to play the "development" card, feel free to hazard a guess as to when our fragile, developing nucleus will be ready to take on a player not cut from the PaxSkiles cloth (a step that pretty much everyone agrees will have to happen if the Bulls are to become a contender) -- 2007? 2009? 2011? Beyond?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> And if you're going to play the "development" card, feel free to hazard a guess as to when our fragile, developing nucleus will be ready to take on a player not cut from the PaxSkiles cloth (a step that pretty much everyone agrees will have to happen if the Bulls are to become a contender) -- 2007? 2009? 2011? Beyond?


If that is the case, does it matter *when* they will be ready, as much as it matter*ed* that they were judged as not being ready last fall?

The whole focus of this argument should be on the status of TT and the Bulls at the time that the decision was made.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> If that is the case, does it matter *when* they will be ready, as much as it matter*ed* that they were judged as not being ready last fall?


Of course it matters, even if only for the sake of discussion, mock drafting, mock free-agenting, etc. 

When will the non-jib sanctions be lifted?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

GB said:


> What is the point that you are trying to make?
> 
> That Tim Thomas could have helped the Bulls? You're probably right.
> 
> ...


these are grown men , do you think that they are so weak minded that tim thomas can mold them into some slacking, reefer smoking degeneragtes, not just now but for the rest of their careers?

what harm could he have done?

i am not concerned , i can only see the good he could have done on a team that could have used his post up abilities as well as his outside and slashing ability to make my team better. the suns(nor did the spurs, nets or anyone for that matter) seems not to have any fears about the character of their team being damaged by Timmy...why should the bulls?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Of course it matters, even if only for the sake of discussion, mock drafting, mock free-agenting, etc.
> 
> When will the non-jib sanctions be lifted?


Then the argument changes to "Are the Bulls ready to accept 'non-jibby' players NOW"?

I think it has less to do with the players and more to do with the over-arching chemistry, culture, and direction of the organization.

Paxson and Skiles are not stupid. They know what kind of talent they need to win right now. They also know what kind of qualities need to be ingrained in an organization to make it a winner for the longterm.

Does anyone doubt that the Spurs and Suns are dedicated to an organizational concept and that that contributes to their longterm success? It adds to the winning, and sometimes, when you don't have it and want it (as the Bulls do) you have to sacrifice the short-term. It sucks to be a fan during that period, but if you trust the GM and coach (and I do) you have no doubt that you'll be rewarded with a long run of success for your patience. Even if you can't pre-mock it out in free-agency and drafts and the like. 

Success seems to follow a certain kind of character. I firmly believe we're building it, and we'll get the fruits of it, and we'll all look back at laugh at these days.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the suns(nor did the spurs, nets or anyone for that matter) seems not to have any fears about the character of their team being damaged by Timmy...why should the bulls?


He would have been on the Nets for the short-term, a mercenary I like to call players of that type.

As for Phoenix and the Spurs--their culture is different from ours. Thus the potential effect would have been different.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> Then the argument changes to "Are the Bulls ready to accept 'non-jibby' players NOW"?


Dodge duly noted.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Dodge duly noted.


Thats not even necessary.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> these are grown men , do you think that they are so weak minded that tim thomas can mold them into some slacking, reefer smoking degeneragtes, not just now but for the rest of their careers?
> 
> what harm could he have done?
> 
> i am not concerned , i can only see the good he could have done on a team that could have used his post up abilities as well as his outside and slashing ability to make my team better. the suns(nor did the spurs, nets or anyone for that matter) seems not to have any fears about the character of their team being damaged by Timmy...why should the bulls?


This, really, is the question. I think Skiles could have played the right card, but it's hard to enforce that playing time is won during practice and have your players swallow that when Tim Thomas, an "established vet", who for the sake of argument doesn't practice AS HARD (maybe hard enough but not jibberific), is taking most to all of your minutes. I could actually see Deng pouting about this.

I feel like Rose came in and was the established talent, and the team basically bowed before him. I remember that on this very board, fans were blasting Cartwright for basically deferring to Rose all the time. It was understandable, perhaps, as this is the supposed "marquee" talent that we needed to resurrect our franchise, but it was not acceptable for those of us who thought that teams can actually grow young players into talents.

So, what harm could have been done? Maybe not much short-term, but gym rats like Hinrich might take some offense at a guy who sort of saunters in, gets a ton of minutes, then leaves town.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Sorry in advance for the double post.

The bottom line here, I think, is that we might apply a different standard for someone who would be willing to play center. If Tim Thomas could effectively play and defend the center position, I'd have been willing to use more leniency. Renting a 6-10 center for a year isn't going to eat into anyone important's minutes.

From the time of decision-making, I think they like Mike Sweetney and Tyson Chandler up front, with Songaila and Othella off the bench. At the time, that wouldn't look like too bad of a frontcourt. Now, we see that Mike is trash and Othella's not where he was last year. I would have kept Tim Thomas around in any event.

I honestly think that the most critical eye I have for Skiles/Pax (more Pax) is that I don't think they are really wanting to deal with the media circus that would come with a semi-high-profile player like Tim Thomas sitting on their bench and being asked to earn minutes. I think it would have put them under too much fire and they weren't willing to deal with that. While that's understandable, it's not acceptable; GM's and coaches have to be willing to throw off the opinions of all fans, of all media, of all criticism and focus on the job at hand. Tim Thomas would have helped our team at 15 mpg at PF/C, and while it would have been tough, we could have fit him into the culture and gone THROUGH the problems that would have likely arisen from his loud mouth and abraisive attitude. 

What I think they did not see is the fruit that would come from acquiring a victory over Thomas in that situation. What if they could have taken this attitude-laden vet and managed to get him to buy into the philosophy of jib? What if they could have CREATED jib in a player who previously had not much? It seems that Thomas might have been amiable to this.

I think that you can be pro-jib and still take on players who have jib-potential, not dooming any player to the red flags of his past. It might not have worked with Thomas, but letting him have Othella's minutes and some of Songaila's and all of Sweetney's minutes... it wouldn't have hurt anyone's development on the team. If he was so terribly anti-jib, which it doesn't seem like he was, then that would be different. But instead, they never gave him enough of a chance to contribute at a position where we really needed a lot of help, if in fact he was capable of doing so.

I'd absolutely LOVE to ask Paxson about that, because it's sort of disturbing. Not having him on the court as a SG/SF? Sure. I can understand that, and Gordon and Deng and Noch have taken big strides this season that I truly don't think would have happened with Tim Thomas crowding their minutes. But PF? C? What if Thomas was playing for Othella or Sweetney or even some of Chandler's minutes earlier in the season during the Tyson-funk? How much would that really have hurt anyone?

This all under the assumption that Thomas can even competently play the position, but if he can, it's disturbing.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> he's played a whopping four games for the sun. how is that a big role exactly? it's not like they got where they are today thanks to the services of tim thomas!
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> just trying to keep a little perspective.


OK - let's take any subjectivity out of this.

So Tim Thomas played 30 mins out of 3000 for the Bulls this season.

Yet Suns have deemed him worthy of 100 minutes out of the 200 they have played since they were able to sign him.

Happy now?

:clown:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> This all under the assumption that Thomas can even competently play the position, but if he can, it's disturbing.


Considering that his career rebounding numbers make Eddy Curry's look prolific and he's never been a guy who has been interested in operating inside and absorbing contact, that's a pretty big assumption. He may be 6'10", but he plays about 6'5".

As I said in the Pipatorade-started fence-mending thread a while back, I am concerned that Pax and Skiles were too rigid in the way they cast TT aside. But on the other hand, it's Tim freaking Thomas we're talking about here and I sincerely don't think he would have helped us win many games, if any. I'm kind of torn - I think the people I regularly disagree with have very valid concerns here, but can't bother to get worked up over a guy like TIMMAY!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

GB said:


> He would have been on the Nets for the short-term, a mercenary I like to call players of that type.
> 
> As for Phoenix and the Spurs--their culture is different from ours. Thus the potential effect would have been different.


how do you know how long he would have been a net ?

he is from NJ he surely would have wanted to stay...also if they want him for 2 months at the ripe ol age of 28 why wouldn't they want him at 29?

what culture differences are there at pho. and S.a. ...is it different because they win ?

who sets a team's culture ? and why should it even matter if you have supposedly strong minded and right minded players whats wrong with a lil' timmy? he isn't a bad apple, his good works are well documented He is a quality human being and a good player. He is definitley not above working hard , he has put on 30 lbs of muscle in his nba career something i wish tyson would soon emulate.

the only effect i care about is the win column and i feel he could have helped


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

For all we know, the guy could have said I'm not playing for you if you don't start me.

While he didn't help us, he definately didn't hurt us. No matter what the truth is, the situation is over.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> This, really, is the question. I think Skiles could have played the right card, but it's hard to enforce that playing time is won during practice and have your players swallow that when Tim Thomas, an "established vet", who for the sake of argument doesn't practice AS HARD (maybe hard enough but not jibberific), is taking most to all of your minutes. I could actually see Deng pouting about this.
> 
> I feel like Rose came in and was the established talent, and the team basically bowed before him. I remember that on this very board, fans were blasting Cartwright for basically deferring to Rose all the time. It was understandable, perhaps, as this is the supposed "marquee" talent that we needed to resurrect our franchise, but it was not acceptable for those of us who thought that teams can actually grow young players into talents.
> 
> So, what harm could have been done? Maybe not much short-term, but gym rats like Hinrich might take some offense at a guy who sort of saunters in, gets a ton of minutes, then leaves town.



i never advocated giving him minutes just for the sake of it.

i am about winning games , if timmy didn't earn his keep then bye bye to him put him on the bench and keep him there .

i never had a problem with cartwright playing rose so much i had a problem with the team when he wasn't on the court , they were horrible , Jalen needed to be out there as much as possible ...until the end of the 2002-03 season and when jalen had help his minutes went down as well as his shots .

thats how its supposed to be , play the players who can help the team win ...all other things strike me as agenda pushing. I dont have league pass to see good players rot on the bench i want to see not just the players but the whole org. giving it their best and when you play malik allen instead of tim thomas its obvious they aren't.

if TT got a ton of minutes its then because he is a good player and he is helping the team win and if kirk had a problem with that ...I would then have a problem with kirk.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Which part of Tim Thomas' -6.9 plus/minus rating is him helping the Suns?

He's there, and he'll score a bit, cos that's what he does. Will he do anything of any significance? No.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Which part of Tim Thomas' -6.9 plus/minus rating is him helping the Suns?


I guess he's not helping them as much as I thought.

On the other hand, if we're going to arrive at conclusions based on small sample sizes, it appears that Thomas would have been a massive help to the Bulls if they'd let him play. He had a +18.8 for us.

http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI.HTM


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Lets try to discuss it without anybody getting snarky and without the typical baggage these threads seem to carry with them.


Ahhhh.... Nice try TomB... The best laid plans of mice and men and all that sort of stuff.

How folks can get so up in arms over Tim freakin' Thomas is beyond me. This thread is a microcosm of why I simply have chosen not to post much here anymore. A career underachiever who has never made one iota of a difference with any team he's played with is now all-of-a-sudden this colossal player who's making incredible contributions to a winning team. Of course, once Amare, Kurt Thomas, Nash and Barbosa get healthy the tune will change. Tim Thomas is an average player who is currently on a team that needs his services because of injuries to key players. Good for him. To make it anything more than that seems pretty silly to me.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I guess he's not helping them as much as I thought.
> 
> On the other hand, if we're going to arrive at conclusions based on small sample sizes,



The rest of the thread has been. He's getting minutes on a team which has a chance at it this season, after all. That's what we're all scrutinising to the point of obsession. So let's go over what he's doing with them.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Ahhhh.... Nice try TomB... The best laid plans of mice and men and all that sort of stuff.
> 
> How folks can get so up in arms over Tim freakin' Thomas is beyond me. This thread is a microcosm of why I simply have chosen not to post much here anymore.


For what it's worth, he was speaking to a relatively small number of folks who seem to keep the maelstrom going (myself included). Read into the thread a bit and you'll find that the high road has been very neatly kept.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

LOL @ Tim Thomas


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I guess he's not helping them as much as I thought.
> 
> On the other hand, if we're going to arrive at conclusions based on small sample sizes, it appears that Thomas would have been a massive help to the Bulls if they'd let him play. He had a +18.8 for us.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI.HTM


Ohhhh!!!!! Ouch


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

The claim that "deep down" the Bulls knew Thomas was better than Deng and Nocioni is a little silly. He's been okay with Phoenix so far but the numbers are, if anything, marginally worse across the board then those of our small forwards - just like his line last year with the Knicks.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> marginally worse across the board then those of our small forwards


But he's not playing small forward for the Suns.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> But he's not playing small forward for the Suns.


I was addressing Tim Thomas' specific claim that he's a better player than Deng and Noc. The stats don't reflect that. Noc and Deng don't always play small forward here.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

There's a disparity in his statement that is being fleshed out in this discussion. Why say that he's better than Noch or Deng, but then say that he knew he could play power forward or center? It's not the right logic.

It could just be a general expression of "I could have played in SOME way in Chicago and I still don't know why I didn't", which is fine, but then these details aren't worth talking about.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> But he's not playing small forward for the Suns.


He sure seems to feel that thats what he would have been playing on the Bulls.

Nice little black eye/trivia question that will follow him around for the rest of his career. He had as much upside if not more than Deng has now.

Just never consistent enought.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Nocioni may feel he's a better player than Deng or Darius and should be out there more.

Duhon may feel he's better than Hinrich or Gordon and should be out there more.

Othella may feel he's better than Malik Allen. He's the team captain for pete's sake. O-Yeah!

I don't see the sin in feeling you are a better player than the guy ahead of you. But, I know that rubs many of the really pro-jib guys the wrong way. Or perhaps its just verbalizing that thought that bothers people (rose,craw).

I'd be interested to see if the Suns had Nocioni and TT who they would be starting at center. I think all 3 players (deng,noc,tt) are around the same level this season, once TT gets into playing shape.

I bet the Bulls told TT that Deng and Noc were ahead of him on the depth chart and that they wanted to develop those players. Its interesting, because at the Bulls tip-off lunch TT was one of the four players they had talk and take a Q and A. I wonder if at that point they were planning on burying him on the bench. I doubt it, since they highlighted him at that lunch.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Why a guy who played a total of about 10 minutes for us is getting a five-page thread is beyond me.

But I guess it makes for great speculation on the part of the members of this board, so people will want to talk about what Tim could have done, what he is, what he was, and what he's doing now with the Suns.

It's all just a bit too much for a guy who never got his opportunity to play for us (although some people never wanted the guy on the team in the first place).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nocioni may feel he's a better player than Deng or Darius and should be out there more.
> 
> Duhon may feel he's better than Hinrich or Gordon and should be out there more.
> 
> ...


There is none, as long as you accept the role that the coach and organization gives you.



> But, I know that rubs many of the really pro-jib guys the wrong way. Or perhaps its just verbalizing that thought that bothers people (rose,craw).
> 
> I'd be interested to see if the Suns had Nocioni and TT who they would be starting at center.


Why are we talking about center when Deng (especially) and Nocioni mostly play the three?



> I think all 3 players (deng,noc,tt) are around the same level this season, once TT gets into playing shape.


No, you don't.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GB said:


> There is none, as long as you accept the role that the coach and organization gives you.


Well, Thomas accepted his role on the Bulls with flying colours.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nocioni may feel he's a better player than Deng or Darius and should be out there more.
> 
> Duhon may feel he's better than Hinrich or Gordon and should be out there more.
> 
> ...


All of these guys have every right to feel whatever they want to, doesn't mean I have to agree. If Du said in the press he was better than Gordon and Hinrich I'd be equally critical of that. My only point was that I don't believe Tim Thomas is better than Deng or Noc, and the stats back that up.

There's absolutely no need to get snarky and bring "really pro-jib guys" into it. It totally degrades the level of discourse, unfairly labels posters and has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my arguments on an individual basis instead of turning me into the spokesperson for some imagined gang of jibpeople. That's unfair.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> All of these guys have every right to feel whatever they want to, doesn't mean I have to agree. If Du said in the press he was better than Gordon and Hinrich I'd be equally critical of that. My only point was that I don't believe Tim Thomas is better than Deng or Noc, and the stats back that up.
> 
> There's absolutely no need to get snarky and bring "really pro-jib guys" into it. It totally degrades the level of discourse, unfairly labels posters and has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my arguments on an individual basis instead of turning me into the spokesperson for some imagined gang of jibpeople. That's unfair.



I wasn't meaning to target you with that... not targeting anyone...just typing out loud. I'll take a guy that's pissed off to be on the bench and thinks he's better than the person ahead of him any day. Beats a sweetheart like Sweetney who will take his benching with the same indifference that he plays with. Frank Williams is another example. And, TT only took this to the press on the way out. TT has to get his side of this bizarre story out there. If his play is solid for the Suns and he gets his side of the story out, his career should not be ruined by the Bulls.

There are plenty of minutes on the team for TT, Deng and Noc to all contribute. On this starless team our guys are going to have slumps, and its good to have potentially effective guys to come off the bench. On a night like tonight for instance, when Gordon didn't show up to play and Duhon isn't playing well, a lineup of Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, TT, Chandler would be nice to try for a while. On the nights where Noc clearly isn't effective, TT could play those minutes. Once again, we’ve been very lucky with injuries this season, but that’s where depth helps as well. 

Whatever, its all water under the bridge now. Its just a strange way to run a professional basketball team, IMO. Perhaps someday it will be effective. In the meantime, it kind of sucks to be out of the playoffs yet again. At least we'll be able to watch some of the Bulls from this season like TT play in the playoffs.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jbulls said:


> There's absolutely no need to get snarky and bring "really pro-jib guys" into it.


The word really has turned into a pejorative.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my arguments on an individual basis instead of turning me into the spokesperson for some imagined gang of jibpeople. That's unfair.


Great response. And for some reason, I find this statement really really funny.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"Mr. JBulls, could you, in your representative capacity as the Spokesperson of the Jibpersons of America, provide an opinion as to the JibberJabber regarding the statements asserted by Tim Thomas of the Phoenix Suns?"


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wasn't meaning to target you with that... not targeting anyone...just typing out loud. I'll take a guy that's pissed off to be on the bench and thinks he's better than the person ahead of him any day. Beats a sweetheart like Sweetney who will take his benching with the same indifference that he plays with. Frank Williams is another example. And, TT only took this to the press on the way out. TT has to get his side of this bizarre story out there. If his play is solid for the Suns and he gets his side of the story out, his career should not be ruined by the Bulls.
> 
> There are plenty of minutes on the team for TT, Deng and Noc to all contribute. On this starless team our guys are going to have slumps, and its good to have potentially effective guys to come off the bench. On a night like tonight for instance, when Gordon didn't show up to play and Duhon isn't playing well, a lineup of Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, TT, Chandler would be nice to try for a while. On the nights where Noc clearly isn't effective, TT could play those minutes. Once again, we’ve been very lucky with injuries this season, but that’s where depth helps as well.
> 
> Whatever, its all water under the bridge now. Its just a strange way to run a professional basketball team, IMO. Perhaps someday it will be effective. In the meantime, it kind of sucks to be out of the playoffs yet again. At least we'll be able to watch some of the Bulls from this season like TT play in the playoffs.



Fair enough. I'm not surprised Thomas said something to this effect, he always does - he took his share of shots at Stephon Marbury when he got here, and I believe has physically threatened both Ray Allen and Kenyon Martin. I don't hate Thomas as a player. He's vastly overpaid, but he is 6'10 and skilled. I don't think he was let go because Skiles and Paxson didn't think he was talented enough, but because they didn't like his attitude and practice habits. I'm not at Bulls practices so I don't know if that was justified or not. But I don't like Thomas enough as a player to get too riled up about it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its hard to tell who is a jib person and who isn't... since the name of the forum is "jib central" and all.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> Ahhhh.... Nice try TomB... The best laid plans of mice and men and all that sort of stuff.
> 
> How folks can get so up in arms over Tim freakin' Thomas is beyond me. This thread is a microcosm of why I simply have chosen not to post much here anymore. A career underachiever who has never made one iota of a difference with any team he's played with is now all-of-a-sudden this colossal player who's making incredible contributions to a winning team. Of course, once Amare, Kurt Thomas, Nash and Barbosa get healthy the tune will change. Tim Thomas is an average player who is currently on a team that needs his services because of injuries to key players. Good for him. To make it anything more than that seems pretty silly to me.


Damn skippy. Tim Thomas is a bum. He will have no impact on the Phoenix win/loss ratio, in a positive or negative fashion, and I'd be fairly confident it would've been the same if he played for the Bulls. 

Sure, he'll come in for the Suns and get some stats, but that's the Suns we're talking about, an anomaly in NBA basketball today.

Any time spent fretting about this guy is time wasted. Textbook example of a dime-a-dozen player.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Damn skippy. Tim Thomas is a bum. He will have no impact on the Phoenix win/loss ratio, in a positive or negative fashion, and I'd be fairly confident it would've been the same if he played for the Bulls.


I'm not just fairly confident that Tim Thomas would have performed better at the 4 in the large chunks of court time that were instead doled out to Mike "DNP-Too Fat" Sweetney and Othella "Cap'n" Harrington, I'm supremely confident.

Then there were the games in which -- believe it or not! -- Noce and Deng were both performing terribly. The games where Skiles played Hinrich or Duhon or Pargo at the 3. The games where we wanted to put in as many competent outside shooters as possible in a last-play-of-a-quarter scenario. The games where our opponent didn't have a strong scoring/rebounding center and we could get away with small ball.

I don't see how he would have done anything but help a starless team that is losing a ton of games at the margins.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

All I have to say is if we were starting

PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Ben Gordon
SF-Luol Deng
PF-Tim Thomas
C- Tyson Chandler

w/ a bench lineup of

PG-Chris Duhon
SG-Kirk Hinrich/Ben Gordon
SF-Andres Nocioni
PF-Malik Allen
C- Othella Harrington/Michael Sweetney/Luke Schensher

we'd be a lot better team.


----------

