# In Pax We Trust



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

We have no idea how lucky we are to have Paxson. Without a doubt a top 5 GM in the league and the summer that he had been planning for worked perfectly. We could not have asked for a better offseason and I still do not think he is done. Nothing major is coming mind you, like a Gooden trade but another big will be brought in I firmly believe that. I do not know who but I think Paxson does. No one though for a lot of years and no one that requires a lot of minutes. Remember he still has the Knicks pick in his back pocket for next year to get another big and even if it is not Oden it could be someone like Noah. Now think about that Noah, Thomas, Wallace all upfront and still have Deng, Nocioni, and Khyrapa. Now tell me why you would add someone longterm to that. No need to. Wallace, Brown plus another big for year is more than enough especially with our other young kids
Now come February you can bet that Paxson will inquire about something big if we look to be in position to go for a ring and he will have the assets to do it but until then what he has assembled now might be the deepest, most versatile team in the entire NBA and I do not think I am overstating that. There are a LOT of teams and GMs that would KILL to be in the Bulls situation. Remember that the next time we complain about someone so insignificant like Smith. We are extremely lucky fans. Do not forget it.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

I miss the days when Bulls fans remained objective, regardless of their favorable/unfavorable opinion of the GM and coach. This nonsense of "Trust in Pax" needs to stop, or you should simply seek employment in the Bulls PR department.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Well my opinion is that when the evidence clearly shows otherwise to complain about little petty moves and think that we know better than him is quite simply arrogant not "objective"


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Basghetti80 said:


> Well my opinion is that when the evidence clearly shows otherwise to complain about little petty moves and think that we know better than him is quite simply arrogant not "objective"


*The only thing that matters is ships*. Not losing in the 1st round of the playoffs or even getting deep into the playoffs. I understand that fans are excited to make the playoffs after being the basement floor for many years, but to blindly trust Paxson's judgement simply because he got us in the position that we're in is foolhardy and shortsighted. Skepticism is a vitue.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

H.O.V.A. said:


> I miss the days when Bulls fans remained objective, regardless of their favorable/unfavorable opinion of the GM and coach. This nonsense of "Trust in Pax" needs to stop, or you should simply seek employment in the Bulls PR department.


Those days never existed. No fan base of any team in the history of the world has ever been "objective" on the whole. What you are referring to is days of more negativity. But negativity does not equate with objectivity. Unfortunately, it is a common self-perception to think that if you are being critical, you are being objective. But the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

And anyway, what if fans simply agree with the moves? What does that mean? 

Finally, if trust is earned it may be given. And fairly so. When it becomes a problem is when that trust blinds one to the actual results. 

For example, many fans wanted Paxson to draft Brandon Roy instead of Tyrus Thomas. But when Thomas was drafted, many took the position that, since Paxson had earned their faith and trust in the last 3 years, they'd wait and objectively view how that draft selection turned out before condemning it. That is trust. And I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see how it evidences a lack of objectivity.

Conversely, taking a hard line without assessing the evidence - the results, not the idea - is where a lack of objectivity is proven.


----------



## coolFilipino (Jan 19, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Those days never existed. No fan base of any team in the history of the world has ever been "objective" on the whole. What you are referring to is days of more negativity. But negativity does not equate with objectivity. Unfortunately, it is a common self-perception to think that if you are being critical, you are being objective. But the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.
> 
> And anyway, what if fans simply agree with the moves? What does that mean?
> 
> ...


Quoted for truth. I barely post but I've been reading up on these forums all day, every day for years and I promise you I don't miss any bit of that "negativity" thats been with the Bulls organization for years. It feels good to finally read up on some optimistic posts instead of, "Can't wait til next years draft..."


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Those days never existed. No fan base of any team in the history of the world has ever been "objective" on the whole. What you are referring to is days of more negativity. But negativity does not equate with objectivity. Unfortunately, it is a common self-perception to think that if you are being critical, you are being objective. But the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.
> 
> And anyway, what if fans simply agree with the moves? What does that mean?
> 
> ...


See my 2nd post. The only thing I'll concede is that its true that no fan-base is entirely objective, but I disgaree with part that the Bulls fans were posting in some type of negative atmosphere. Yes the team was losing, but Bulls fans simply hold the team to a high standard. Even during the terrible years, attendence was high. The Bulls forum full with posters. Of course this doesn't mean that everyone is exactly positive all of the time, but that applies to the reverse as well.

Paxson officially works for the Bulls organization, and unofficially for the fans. Time and again, posters have voiced the similar sentiments that Paxson has some sort of godly basketball accumen that merits blind trust. Taking a look at his track record, I think that its premature to do that. You're free to place your trust in him for getting the Bulls only this far. I am still reserving judgement.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> See my 2nd post. The only thing I'll concede is that its true that no fan-base is entirely objective, but I disgaree with part that the Bulls fans were posting in some type of negative atmosphere. Yes the team was losing, but Bulls fans simply hold the team to a high standard. Even during the terrible years, attendence was high. The Bulls forum full with posters. Of course this doesn't mean that everyone is exactly positive all of the time, but that applies to the reverse as well.
> 
> Paxson officially works for the Bulls organization, and unofficially for the fans. Time and again, posters have voiced the similar sentiments that Paxson has some sort of godly basketball accumen that merits *blind* trust. Taking a look at his track record, I think that its premature to do that. You're free to place your trust in him for getting the Bulls only this far. I am still reserving judgement.


I take exception to your repeated use of "blind trust" in reference to all Pax supporters. These past two years have been awfully fun as a Bulls fan. We have a talented and hard-working team and a no-nonsense coach. Our team looks to contend this year. Pax's plan has worked so far. What's "blind" about supporting him for these reasons.

I trust Paxson and will continue to do so. We aren't privy to players' trade value, personal workouts, player interviews, locker room chemistry. Pax is. We can only speculate. The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Overall, Pax has done a nice job, no one can deny that, for sure. --the only drawback is that he is constrained by Jerry's bottom line and budetary constraints--the Chairman no doubt lives in mortal fear of the luxury tax, breaking out in Sterling-like night sweats, emerging from a nightmare scenario in which profits declined 15% from the previous year....heavens forbit that profits are down!

Thus, the big gripe I have is that in order to get Wallace, he had to ship out Tyson, rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. Otherwise, he's done a commendable job in stockpiling good players.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would argue that trading Tyson after signing Wallace was the right move for period. Financially and otherwise. Even if he was willing to pay luxury tax trading Tyson was the right move.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Good posts by Ron Cey and HOVA

My feeling is kind of like how Ron Cey put it in terms of the draft. I have that same trust in Pax when it comes to character issues as well, because what the hell do I know. But in terms judging talent in the league, I have enough basis to come to my own conclusions. 

I have a lot of faith in Pax but the Smith trade, I going to call it right now (and about 50 posts ago) as a horrible trade. Griffin will never see the floor. The 2nders will never see the floor. Smith might average about 20PPG with Denver next year as a 21 year old. There really is a good arguement why it wasn't a bad trade, some think 2rdp's are valuable, having vets instead of young guys at the back of the bench is a benefit. That being said I will be surprised if Smith doesn't put up 20 in the next year or two with Denver, he's going to get a ton of burn there. That much talent for what we got is not a strong move. JR may be a lot of things but he was putting up 13ppg when he was 19. Last year he got the shaft, but talent will always override attitude in this league. Just needs a new begining.

Aside from that move I've liked everything he's done, and even if JR does in fact turn into a allstar, Pax has made up for it with other moves. Turning the 21rst pick into Deng. Curry into Tyrus, 10+ spots higher in next years highly anticipated draft and some of the money it took to get Wallace. I didn't mention the 2 2rdp's because they are garbage for us, we are deep and young already and because I bashed the picks we got for the Smith trade. Duhon was another nice pickup.

I do Trust that Pax will do a good job, but I don't have blind faith in everything he does. I'm objective, give me a cookie.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The only thing I have to wonder about Pax, is if and when we can gamble on a talented player who isn't 100% jib. Don't get me wrong. I think Pax, today, is probably a top 3 GM, maybe the best. He's done a great job. I just wonder if he will gamble on a talented player down the road.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

Ill bump this thread in December, then i wonder if u will show the same love...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> The only thing I have to wonder about Pax, is if and when we can gamble on a talented player who isn't 100% jib. Don't get me wrong. I think Pax, today, is probably a top 3 GM, maybe the best. He's done a great job. I just wonder if he will gamble on a talented player down the road.


Ben Wallace is absolutely a jib risk. He's clashed with his last three high-profile coaches, often very messily and very publicly and probably to the detriment of team chemistry. And to Danny Ainge's eye, at least, Wallace quit in several 4th quarters of playoff games this season when the chips were down. He's clearly not a jib risk in terms of the way he prepares himself for games, but he's absolutely a risk in several other very important areas.

Of course, just as the Wallace signing proved me wrong that Paxskiles would never assume a jib risk, they go and give away J.R. Smith for precisely that reason. I don't like J.R. Smith's past, present, or future, but I think we're well-positioned, talent and jib-wise, to throw the dice and attempt to see if he'd pan out. 

On topic: I still have significant doubts re Pax, and I think it's preposterous to claim that his gaudy .450 winning percentage, zero playoff series won, and extremely shaky track record with trades leave him beyond reproach of any kind. Not being Billy King or Isiah Thomas isn't enough for me: this is a proud franchise with unmatched resources. Championships and multiple deep playoff runs should be the standard here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> The only thing I have to wonder about Pax, is if and when we can gamble on a talented player who isn't 100% jib. Don't get me wrong. I think Pax, today, is probably a top 3 GM, maybe the best. He's done a great job. I just wonder if he will gamble on a talented player down the road.


I think Tyrus Thomas probably fits that description. At least that was my perception going in.

Personally, I think Wallace fits that description too. His actions could pretty easily be interpreted as being the product thinking he's better than he actually is, and that could end up being a problem.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> this is a proud franchise with *unmatched resources*. Championships and multiple deep playoff runs should be the standard here.


It's also worth noting that Pax shouldn't be judged based on the budget that's set for him. If ownership gives him a number and tells him to do the best he can with it, then you can't really blame him for not doing as well as he could if he were given more to work with.

I also have some sympathy for a GM whose owner starts suggesting moves involving players associated with his buddy, the sports agent. It might ultimately be "the GM's call", and if things go poorly it'll certainly be "the GM's fault", but it's a pretty crummy situation to be in.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i think the team we have this year is a step in the right direction. i think most people can agree that this team can at least be one of the top 4 teams in the east. secure home court advantage and see the second round. 

it's difficult to make the leap to a championship winner in one season. but i think pax is aiming to keep this team one of the top 4 in the east. 

and at the same time, keep things flexible enough to make a trade that could put us over the top. keep in mind detroit was always an eastern conference contender. but this was when everyone assumed the eastern conf champs were the sacrifical lambs for teh western conf champs. of course when they aquired sheed everything changed.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If Paxson hasn't earned blind trust, I think the progress he has made in turning the franchise around from the worst six year run in US pro sports history has earned him the benefit of the doubt. He has built a deep and versatile roster of solid and talented, albeit generally young players. He has added the length and athleticism that was needed. This is a team that is poised to be strong now, and (if they are kept together, and I think for the most part, they will be) for many years to come.

Yes, deep playoff runs and championships will be the proof in the pudding. It hasn't happened yet. Again, given the sorry state of the franchise throughout the black death years, I don't think a championship YET in the Paxson tenure would be a reasonable expectation. Are we headed in that direction? I think most who aren't firmly entrenched in the position that Pax can do no right would agree that yes, we are in a position to be in the running in the East. No sure thing, but we have reason to believe.

With a different roster last year, a second round appearance was possible, but not necessarily probable. Would they have or wouldn't they? I say To-MAY-to You say to-MAH-to. The general trend will continue up, up, up, from what I can see.

Like I said, I think the retooling of the roster is impressive. From where I'm sitting the franchise looks pretty good moving forward and depending on how our guys develop and improve, contending is close enough to taste it. For the first time since The Great Bald One retired in 1998, there is actual support for that opinion in the press.

We talk about blind faith in Pax... any fan opinion is blind to some extent. We don't know as much about what is going on at the GM level as we like to think we do.

There is blind trust.

There is blind hate.

There is blind faith.

There is blind criticism.

Given where we've been, where we seem to be now and where we appear to be going, I think Pax has earned the benefit of the doubt, and as to the stuff going on to which we are blind, we should have some faith that he isn't a drooling idiot, and knows a thing or two about his job.

We don't have to agree with every move, but he has earned the right to be respected, IMO.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I reserve judgement till next postseason.

But I tell you this, if the players don't perform, I'll be looking at Pax.....not the players. This is the team HE assembled now. The days of "blame uncle jerry" are over.

In the meantime, I'll take him for what he has done. A VERY VERY Good job.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

He inherited the length and athleticism that was needed.

Now we’re sitting here complaining about lack of productive size and interior scoring.... needing a trade to get it... or waiting on lotto picks to develop.

He inherited 2 of the best 3 players from a #3 in the East team.

Whatever... let's at least hope we can get back to where we were two seasons ago and move onward and upward from there.

The last time bigger things were expected from the Bulls was when Paxson guaranteed playoffs. Its going to turn out better this time. With Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas and the Knicks pick... we have some room to move up.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If Paxson hasn't earned blind trust, I think the progress he has made in turning the franchise around from the worst six year run in US pro sports history has earned him the benefit of the doubt. He has built a deep and versatile roster of solid and talented, albeit generally young players. He has added the ...


Great post, Bubbles.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He inherited the length and athleticism that was needed.


Surely you aren't talking about our 7 foot Lenny and Squiggy. 

No, wait. You are. We've had this conversation before, I think.

we've seen how far Eddy was able to carry a franchise on his back last year with his "length and athleticism." We'll see how year 2 goes, and how Tyson fairs down in N'Awlins. 

We'll see if they truly are difference makers.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> On topic: I still have significant doubts re Pax, *and I think it's preposterous to claim that his gaudy .450 winning percentage, zero playoff series won, and extremely shaky track record with trades leave him beyond reproach of any kind.* Not being Billy King or Isiah Thomas isn't enough for me: this is a proud franchise with unmatched resources. Championships and multiple deep playoff runs should be the standard here.


Is that a common claim, Scott? I think every single one of us has had beef with an actual, or rumored, move of Paxsons at one point or another.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> we've seen how far Eddy was able to carry a franchise on his back last year with his "length and athleticism." We'll see how year 2 goes, and how Tyson fairs down in N'Awlins.


Curry is in a crap situation. We've already seen he can be the leading scorer and log the 2nd most minutes per game on a winning team.

Curry, Chandler, or any of the Bulls save Wallace and perhaps TT are even remotely considered franchise altering difference makers.... and its up in the air is Wallace was a product of the selfless Pistons Model or a true star. We’ll see soon enough.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Ben Wallace is absolutely a jib risk. He's clashed with his last three high-profile coaches, often very messily and very publicly and probably to the detriment of team chemistry. And to Danny Ainge's eye, at least, Wallace quit in several 4th quarters of playoff games this season when the chips were down. He's clearly not a jib risk in terms of the way he prepares himself for games, but he's absolutely a risk in several other very important areas.
> 
> Of course, just as the Wallace signing proved me wrong that Paxskiles would never assume a jib risk, they go and give away J.R. Smith for precisely that reason. I don't like J.R. Smith's past, present, or future, but I think we're well-positioned, talent and jib-wise, to throw the dice and attempt to see if he'd pan out.
> 
> On topic: I still have significant doubts re Pax, and I think it's preposterous to claim that his gaudy .450 winning percentage, zero playoff series won, and extremely shaky track record with trades leave him beyond reproach of any kind. Not being Billy King or Isiah Thomas isn't enough for me: this is a proud franchise with unmatched resources. Championships and multiple deep playoff runs should be the standard here.




this is so true , to me its kind of funny that the ultimately all we will have to show for the 3 C's that were inherited will come from only 1 of them (curry ) will be basically a bunch of 2nd round picks tyrus thomas and a swap of picks with a team that could be as good as the bulls next year or the league's worst team , its a complete crapshoot because no one knows how much damage a HOF coach did last year, i dont see any real help to the bulls from the trading of JC and chandler for the future growth of the team....basically i take 3 years of frugality was just to overpay ben wallace at an age when most overachieving undersized big men tend to faulter....i'm supposedly now to believe wallace is in such great shape he will buck the laws of aging and stay at his current level throughout the length of his contract something i have quite honestly never seen before from any player, all the great players with longevity had something in their game that helped them not seemingly age so quick.

karl malone developed a J ....while his other #s fell steadily across the board
kareem was 7'2 and just stopped rebounding after a certain point.
MJ became a fadeaway J shooter
stockton was played less minutes 

ben is purely a defender/rebounder things that historically go away slowly after 30 and i know he is still pretty good but the idea of giving a player a huge raise just when he is supposed to decline to me seems the kind of situation that always turns out badly. and even then i believe his consistency should give the bulls a 50+ win season , but i cant see them being a 2nd round team unless the other players improve to the point it makes them better than either the cavs or new jersey.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Curry is in a crap situation. We've already seen he can be the leading scorer and log the 2nd most minutes per game on a winning team.


we've also seen his success being based on being surrounded by good players, a good coach, and being inserted into a situation designed for him to succeed, yet mask his weaknesses; it could be argued he was in a crap situation on the bull prior to the arrival of "the core"......curry's and chandler's underachieving isn't a by-product of "crap situations" no more than their "potential" being the by-product of their awesome physical gifts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> we've also seen his success being based on being surrounded by good players, a good coach, and being inserted into a situation designed for him to succeed, yet mask his weaknesses;



That's true with almost every player though, save for the SHAQs of the world who can single handledly make a team good.

If you take Ben Gordon and plop him down in New York or Atlanta, you are not going to see much of an improvement.



> it could be argued he was in a crap situation on the bull prior to the arrival of "the core"......curry's and chandler's underachieving isn't a by-product of "crap situations" no more than their "potential" being the by-product of their awesome physical gifts.


No doubt the structure of the PaxSkiles system was a big reason that Curry and Chandler were 2 of the top 3 (EFF, PER) players on our winning team that had home court advantage in the 1st round.

That was actual production. That's why we won.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> On topic: I still have significant doubts re Pax, and I think it's preposterous to claim that his gaudy .450 winning percentage, zero playoff series won, and extremely shaky track record with trades leave him beyond reproach of any kind.


You're completely ignoring the mess of a team that he took over.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> It's also worth noting that Pax shouldn't be judged based on the budget that's set for him. If ownership gives him a number and tells him to do the best he can with it, then you can't really blame him for not doing as well as he could if he were given more to work with.
> 
> I also have some sympathy for a GM whose owner starts suggesting moves involving players associated with his buddy, the sports agent. It might ultimately be "the GM's call", and if things go poorly it'll certainly be "the GM's fault", but it's a pretty crummy situation to be in.


This is definitely worth noting. Hell, I'll even cut Reinsdorf some slack here -- he has to stick with a budget set by the Bulls' partners. I sincerely believe the Bulls' ownership situation is an impediment to success, and it's why I've always hoped the team would be sold to a single owner whose primary motivation is for the team to win.

But in any case, I do think it's part of the job description for a successful GM to convince his bosses to sign off on moves they don't truly believe in, or, alternatively, to keep them from indulging uninformed whims. Maybe it's not a perfect analogy, given that the issue there was control of personnel, not dollars and cents, but I think of how Bob Watson and Brian Cashman took the reins of the Yankees away from the Boss's decrepit stable of Tampa "baseball guys" and how important that was to the team's resurgence in the mid 90s. If Steinbrenner can give in, then there's hope for anyone. Although I hear The Estate of Eugene Fanning is quite a tough sell.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Is that a common claim, Scott? I think every single one of us has had beef with an actual, or rumored, move of Paxsons at one point or another.


I don't know if it's common or not. I was responding to the thread starter.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Of course, just as the Wallace signing proved me wrong that Paxskiles would never assume a jib risk, they go and give away J.R. Smith for precisely that reason. I don't like J.R. Smith's past, present, or future, but I think we're well-positioned, talent and jib-wise, to throw the dice and attempt to see if he'd pan out.


To further his career, JR Smith will need to find a situation where he can play legit minutes. That simply wouldn't happen here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> You're completely ignoring the mess of a team that he took over.


Paxson felt strongly enough about the team he inherited that he guaranteed playoffs in his first season.

In Pax We Trust?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> You're completely ignoring the mess of a team that he took over.


And I think that you're completely ignoring the assets that Paxson had at his disposal -- no cap issues, high draft picks, a rabid, revenue-generating fan base, etc. 

Breaking down and rebuilding a team like the 2003 Bulls is a hell of a lot easier than breaking down the current Knicks or 76ers or a team of that ilk, and when you're coming off the worst seven-year record in the history of the NBA, the bar is set pretty low.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> To further his career, JR Smith will need to find a situation where he can play legit minutes. That simply wouldn't happen here.



I'm mystified as to why people are calling this a salary dump and a pro-jib move when it clearly has a BASKETBALL rationale.

On the other hand, no, I'm not.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*We lose (so far) :*

Tyson Chandler
Darius Songalia
Othella Harrington
J.R. Smith
Two Future 2nd round picks

*We gain (so far) :*

Ben Wallace
Tyrus Thomas
Thabo Sefolosha
Viktor Khyrapa
P.J. Brown
Adrian Griffin
Two future 2nd round picks

I trust Pax, he knows what he's doing and he knows HOW to build a winning team.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The ROY said:


> *We lose (so far) :*
> 
> Tyson Chandler
> Darius Songalia
> ...


I'm trying to figure out how Paxson doesn't earn the benefit of the doubt with those moves. Especially on an alleged headcase like Smith.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Those days never existed. No fan base of any team in the history of the world has ever been "objective" on the whole. What you are referring to is days of more negativity. But negativity does not equate with objectivity. Unfortunately, it is a common self-perception to think that if you are being critical, you are being objective. But the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.
> 
> And anyway, what if fans simply agree with the moves? What does that mean?
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ron Cey again.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The ROY said:


> *We lose (so far) :*
> 
> Tyson Chandler
> Darius Songalia
> ...


You cant count J.R. as a loss because he wasn't here to begin with. The above looks more acurate to me.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> You cant count J.R. as a loss because he wasn't here to begin with.


He was a Bull that we had the option of suiting up.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> You cant count J.R. as a loss because he wasn't here to begin with. The above looks more acurate to me.


To this point, Those are the players and picks we've gained and lost. What I posted WAS acurate.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Bear with me for a paragraph as I get off topic, with hope of clarifying something at issue in this thread. Is blind trust in management a problem for Bulls fans? 

Blind trust in management is a PROBLEM for northside baseball fans. There, you have a clear correlation between fan attendance and mgmt/owner complacency. They fill the seats, so there's no need to improve the team with risky moves. Same goes for their unwillingness to make unpopular moves. They could have set themselves up for 10 years with top shelf prospects, had they traded ultra-popular Sammy Sosa at his peak (even after it). Instead, they waited til...when? He became unpopular after quitting on the team. 


Anyway, that's them. The Bulls however, have an owner who has shown a commitment to paying up when he has a winner. THAT earns trust. Re-tangent: With the Sox, Jerry will make the unpopular move (White Flag trade, dumping Ordonez) when it aims at making changes for the better. 

We all want to jump to conclusions on message boards because it's fun, but honestly, Pax does not have enough of a track record to merit a fair appraisal. No matter what anyone says: inheriting total rebuilding takes a long time to get out of. This is just fact.

This is his first offseason where there's been freedom to add, subtract, maneuver. He has cleared out what he didn't like and added a big piece very recently. This is now John Paxson's team, and you can fully judge him with this group onward.

I mean, we like talking here like the book is closed on his draft picks and FA signings; it just isnt. It's silly to get overheated about that stuff when this has been a young team since Pax took over, and is just now graduating to something above that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> And I think that you're completely ignoring the assets that Paxson had at his disposal -- no cap issues,


The team was capped out every summer of his administration until this one. And when he did finally get capspace, capspace that he maneuvered to get for years, he signed the best free agent on the market. "No cap issues"? 



> high draft picks


Which for the most part we all agree he used exceptionally well.



> , a rabid, revenue-generating fan base, etc.


Reinsdorf issue. 



> Breaking down and rebuilding a team like the 2003 Bulls is a hell of a lot easier than breaking down the current Knicks or 76ers or a team of that ilk


No team ever would be as hard to breakdown as the current Knicks. But they got there due to the incompetence of the current GM. 

As for the 76ers and other bad teams, they would be easy to break down. Just dump the players for nothing and start over. That is basically what Paxson did with Rose, E-Rob, Crawford, JYD, Marshall, etc. It ain't hard to destroy a team in the interests of starting over if you have the stones to do it.



> , and when you're coming off the worst seven-year record in the history of the NBA, the bar is set pretty low.


What does that have to do with Paxson? That is simply evidence that rebuilding isn't a cake walk. And it shows how far he has come so quickly.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The ROY said:


> To this point, Those are the players and picks we've gained and lost. What I posted WAS acurate.


I thought your post was about gains and losses of players from the end of the season until now. If so, J.R. Smith should be counted as both a gain and a loss and therefore should not be counted at all.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> I thought your post was about gains and losses of players from the end of the season until now. If so, J.R. Smith should be counted as both a gain and a loss and therefore should not be counted at all.


ahh..

makes sense


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Oh boy. I saw this thread and thought "uh oh," but the conversation has actually been pretty civil so far.

I would say briefly that I think Pax's moves since taking over, on the whole, merit the fans placing their trust in him. I don't think he's been perfect, but overall I think particularly his draft picks and the recent signing of Wallace are slam-dunk moves. Obviously the Pippen fiasco, Corie Blount, etc. didn't work out. I think the moves though have been much more good than bad, and that's why I trust him.

However, I can understand why others would be more apprehensive. I think there is a lot of unfair criticism of Bulls management on the boards, but also lots of perfectly fair criticism. For those who don't want to trust Pax, that's their choice. Those that do however, should not be subject to the criticism that they are merely operating on blind faith. People build trust based upon their past actions and statements. I think Pax has done enough to be trusted by the posters that choose to trust him without having to be constantly lambasted as management lackeys.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry is in a crap situation. We've already seen he can be the leading scorer and log the 2nd most minutes per game on a winning team.


Guys that have absolutely no fire in them can be team leading scorers in the NBA. I'll list 90 of them if you want.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Guys that have absolutely no fire in them can be team leading scorers in the NBA. I'll list 90 of them if you want.


I'll start: Ron Mercer.

Is Curry (i'm guessing he's the one mentioned) closer to being a Dwayne Wade type impact player or a Ron Mercer type impact player?

Thats it in a nutshell. And again, the argument has nothing to do with basketball.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Guys that have absolutely no fire in them can be team leading scorers in the NBA.


Not just team leading scorers.

Team leading scorers that are on one of the top four teams in the conference.

I'm interested in seeing the list.

Another interesting list would be guys that are top 2 in MPG and PPG on top four teams in their conference for the last 5 years.

I agree, being a leader on a crappy team is a sometimes dubious feat. That's Elton Brand and Jalen Rose.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Another interesting list would be guys that are top 2 in MPG and PPG on top four teams in their conference for the last 5 years.



the team was winning because of defense. that is why Curry was usually nice and comfy on the bench when crunch time rolled around. 

also, your strict adherence to #s keeps overlooking so much. Curry did not play at the same level from quarters 1 to 4. He would come out of the gate with some quick buckets and usually fade. you absolutely cant dispute that.

this points to one of two things: conditioning problems, lack of mental toughness in crunch time. wait, i'm wrong, it could be some of both.

either way, there are reasons he was on the bench during the game-determining stretches. it wasnt a Skiles conspiracy, because if so...then his good friend Larry Brown is part of it as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> the team was winning because of defense. that is why Curry was usually nice and comfy on the bench when crunch time rolled around.


And yet, Skiles chose to play him more than any other player on the team save Hinrich.

Skiles tends not to give playing time to players that don't help the cause.




> also, your strict adherence to #s keeps overlooking so much. Curry did not play at the same level from quarters 1 to 4. He would come out of the gate with some quick buckets and usually fade. you absolutely cant dispute that.


I could buy that.... our starting lineup that year Duhon/Hinrich/Deng/AD/Curry was one of our best lineups +/- wise according to 82games. That was a damn effective group.... and usually squaring off against the best lineup from the other team.




> this points to one of two things: conditioning problems, lack of mental toughness in crunch time. wait, i'm wrong, it could be some of both.


And yet, despite all these horrible problems, Skiles chose to play him more than anyone except oh captain my captain.

Ben Wallace spends time on the bench to close out games as well. So does Z. So does SHAQ. Not being on the floor for the last two minutes of the game makes sense sometimes depending on the players skillset.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I GENERALLY like what Pax has done. The team is competetive and did improve during the offseason. I have had issues with a lot of his moves, I wasn't a fan of trading JC, I thought the Curry trade was erring on the side of caution to a ridiculous degree. Still, things have seemed to work out pretty well overall. I won't put blind trust in Pax's moves and when he makes one that I think is boneheaded I will say it. I thought dealing Chandler was boneheaded and the subsequent dealing of Smith as well. Smith, in my mind, was the only GOOD point about the Chandler trade. Maybe I am wrong and Smith goes on to be a headcase for the rest of his NBA career, or, maybe he gets it together in Denver and becomes the all star caliber type player I think he is capable of becoming in time & the right circumstances. I would have prefered we kept him and saw what he could bring. I'm not worried so much about his playing time because if he played up to his ability he could probably earn STARTER minutes on this team. It's a big if but at least it would have been possible.

In any case, Pax, like most gm's, makes good moves & bad moves and we don't always know if his moves are good or bad until years down the road. All of this being said, I do think Pax has earned a little bit of leeway from the fans, he has done some pretty great things, he has had strong drafts, signing Nocioni was a stroke of brilliance and getting Ben Wallace is huge! I still want to see that we aren't afraid to take a player that isn't a squeaky clean jib guy and work him into our system, make him BUY into what we are doing. I don't think it is as hard as Pax seems to be making it out to be. Or maybe it is Skiles that doesn't want to be bothered with nurturing player development or making them buy in?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I see a thread like this and I just have to shake my head. I think both blind trust and blind hatrid are very dangerous things. As Ron Cey wrote, sometimes trust is earned and for me, at least, Pax has earned my trust. I don't ever want to go back to the post-jordan days. To be so incredibly bad - on pupose - simply destroys whatever concept of team there is.

John Paxson had an incredible mess that he had to deal with before he could even think of building a winner. A losing mentality is a difficult thing to exorcise from any organization and he has done a very good job of getting rid of that losing mentality. For that he should be recognized. 

To a certain degree, I think this all boils down to a philosophy or outlook on things. I, for one, seem to very closely identify to the type of team/environment that Pax is trying to create. To that end, I generally don't have a problem with his moves to date and I can understand why they were made. The tangible results of those moves to date have taken this team from a laughingstock to where we are today - being talked about as a possible eastern conference contender - in a span of a little over three years. Again, to date, the results are basically positive. There are those who don't identify with whatever philosophy Pax has and so they don't like the moves. That's fine. Yet, to accuse anyone who seems to agree with what Pax has done as "blind faith" seems pretty extreme. As does anyone who accuses folks of bashing Pax at every turn as "blind hatrid". 

Again, I personally don't have a problem with the Chandler trade. I believe PJ Brown, for this season, will be a better player for the Bulls than Chandler would have. We can speak in hypotheticals all we want and Chandler may become this 20/10 monster, in which case, I'll hate the trade. But as things stand right now and knowing what I know of the two players, I'd take PJ Brown for this next season. After this season, I have no opinion on the Chandler trade becaue I don't know what becomes of PJ Brown. Is he traded mid-season as a sizable expiring contract that helps this team? Does he ride off into the sunset and nothing is done? (In which case, I'll not like the trade all that much). 

Same thing applies to JR Smith. Would it have been nice to give the guy a chance? Sure. Would he have made a difference? Maybe. Is he a head-case? From all I've seen and read - youbetcha. Pax didn't want him around and moved him to fit in Adrian Griffin and got a couple of second rounders also. We can all play the hypothetical "what if" game again all we want. Until what if become what is, it's all conjecture.

If I don't feel like acting like judge, jury and executioner because all the results from certain deals haven't been realized yet that doesn't mean I blindly follow Pax or anyone or anything else. It's just a mindset that I have that i like to see the results of an action before condenming it or praising it. What I will say is that the sum total of Pax's body of work suggests that he'll get the benefit of the doubt from me. I've said it all along and I'll stick to it. This summer was Pax's time to really improve this team. He's done what he felt he needed to. He had a vision and a plan and has stuck to it. I give him props for sticking to his convictions. That's not an easy thing to do. I want to see how this team does this comming season to see if that vision is working.

The man has done a good job and if it is some sort of crime or mental weakness to compliment him on it and have a modicum of respect for it, then consider me a weak-minded criminal. We're going in the right direction and for once, I'm looking forward to spending the $180 on League Pass to watch these guys win more than they lose (hopefully) rather than spending that money and ending up watching other teams play because I've gotten disgusted with my favorite team and how they're performing.

It's not blind faith but it is faith based on past and current performance. I've just seen very little that would suggest that Pax doesn't know what he's doing.

rant over...


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet, Skiles chose to play him more than any other player on the team save Hinrich.
> 
> Skiles tends not to give playing time to players that don't help the cause.
> 
> ...



Did you watch the games? +/- and stats are great reasons to pay out $50 mil contracts when it's not your money. 

Last year we moved the ball around, developed the scoring abilities of Deng and Nocioni. The year before, the ball would go down low and not come back out. 

Was it overall a better team? Most of the year, no... because the roster was incomplete. Now we have a full cast, and we'll see what happens. 


Curry's scoring can be replaced. It just isnt that hard to do. If you can do that, and take care of his defensive liabilities, you do it. and they did.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> As for the 76ers and other bad teams, they would be easy to break down. Just dump the players for nothing and start over. That is basically what Paxson did with Rose, E-Rob, Crawford, JYD, Marshall, etc. It ain't hard to destroy a team in the interests of starting over if you have the stones to do it.


You're wrong. It's actually extremely hard to destroy a team when the team operates in a city where people actually stop buying tickets and going to games when you lose often and lose badly. 

The Bulls are extremely fortunate in that they have a patient, loyal fan base, and that there's still Michael Jordan residue all over the United Center.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> I see a thread like this and I just have to shake my head. I think both blind trust and blind hatrid are very dangerous things. As Ron Cey wrote, sometimes trust is earned and for me, at least, Pax has earned my trust. I don't ever want to go back to the post-jordan days. To be so incredibly bad - on pupose - simply destroys whatever concept of team there is.
> 
> John Paxson had an incredible mess that he had to deal with before he could even think of building a winner. A losing mentality is a difficult thing to exorcise from any organization and he has done a very good job of getting rid of that losing mentality. For that he should be recognized.
> 
> ...


Thats a wonderful post. But isn't this thread about Eddy Curry?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Did you watch the games? +/- and stats are great reasons to pay out $50 mil contracts when it's not your money.


Call me crazy, but when your starting lineup is beating the starting lineup of the other team, I think that's a good thing.

Yah, I watched a couple games. Maybe more than that. Its hard to remember.




> Last year we moved the ball around, developed the scoring abilities of Deng and Nocioni. The year before, the ball would go down low and not come back out.


And we ended up scoring more points than the other team.



> Was it overall a better team?


Then last year's team. Hell yah. No question. Paxson agrees.



> Curry's scoring can be replaced. It just isnt that hard to do. If you can do that, and take care of his defensive liabilities, you do it. and they did.


Who has replaced Curry's interior scoring?

I've heard the lumps of meat argument. I just have not seen the replacement yet. Maybe three seasons removed we'll see it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> You're wrong. *It's actually extremely hard to destroy a team when the team operates in a city where people actually stop buying tickets and going to games when you lose often and lose badly.*
> 
> The Bulls are extremely fortunate in that they have a patient, loyal fan base, and that there's still Michael Jordan residue all over the United Center.


Is that what Philly fans do? New York fans? 

In my experience, teams that are already bad, that have a fickle fan base, blow up the team because the fan base has already left. 

In other words, I think you are describing a scenario that rarely exists. Teams that are pretty bad, but still do very well in attendance, can weather rebuilding. 

Teams that are pretty bad, but do poorly in attendence, often need to start over to fix the attendance problem. 

Ignoring the monstrosity that is the current New York Knicks, blowing up a pretty bad team is easy if you have the stones.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> You cant count J.R. as a loss because he wasn't here to begin with. The above looks more acurate to me.


Because of two second round picks we get back, JR is legitimate part of "We lose so far" list.

After all there were a lot of people criticize him for including those two 2R picks in the two draft day trades. Now we get those picks right back.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> After all there were a lot of people criticize him for including those two 2R picks in the two draft day trades. Now we get those picks right back.


One of them was replaced with cash instead, so as it was reported afterwards and by Paxson's radio interview.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

step said:


> One of them was replaced with cash instead, so as it was reported afterwards and by Paxson's radio interview.


OK, we got one more extra 2R pick then. Not that it will matter that much.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

As expected, this thread has brought out many "golden oldie" arguments. Very nostalgiac.

When Paxson was selected to replace Krause, I just shook my head. After all, the last time a Chicago team got their GM from the broadcast booth, it was an unmitigated disaster (anyone remember "The Hawk Wants You"). Sure, Paxson was a good, heady player and a fine color man on the radio, but he had zip NBA management experience.

Despite my misgivings, I decided to give Paxson the benefit of the doubt and see what he did. That first summer, he went after Wade, which told me he might be a pretty good talent evaluator, but wasn't quite bold enough to get him. Hinrich was a very good consolation prize, but that was a miss. Once the season started, he quickly concluded that his team didn't play defense, didn't play together and didn't play hard. He literally couldn't stand what he saw and this time he didn't hesitate. He fired Cartwright, traded Rose and brought in players who may not be the most talented, but would work hard and defend. He brought in a young hard*** head coach with a questionable reputation for table manners. If he was going to lose (and he was), he'd do it HIS WAY.

That's when I started to think that Paxson was no Hawk Harrelson. At that point, he may not have exactly known what he was doing, but he had an idea of what he wanted to do. 

This offseason was Paxson's opportunity to show that he'd learned something about the craft of being a GM. After trying unsuccessfully to trade his 2 first round picks, he got comfortable with the draft and got exactly the players he wanted, along with a serviceable role player in Khryapa. He had cap space and he went out and quickly nailed down the only star free agent available. Once Wallace was in the fold, he unloaded the large contract and redundant (to Wallace) skills of Chandler.

We can (and frequently do) argue about any of these moves, but the fact is that Paxson is showing that he has a plan and will act decisively in its execution.

Paxson's not done yet this offseason, but a couple things are clear - this is HIS TEAM and when it goes out on the floor, it will look nothing like the one he inherited. He'll like what he sees.

I think I will too. He's doing very well in my book.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Then last year's team. Hell yah. No question. Paxson agrees.


But Paxson believes that in a far different way than you do. Last year's team was incomplete, lacking NBA size in every which way. The fact that it nearly bested the prior year's team is a testament to how much better our offense got without Curry. It became a complete offense that featured several scoring threats.

Kirk, Luol and Andres made strides with their scoring. Luol and Andres got a LOT better at getting to the hoop. I feel these strides would not have been possible if Curry had been the offense's featured guy once again. He just doesnt pass well out of double teams, and the best offensive bigs definitely do that. Bigs that pass become all the more dangerous with their catch-and-dunk abilities.

The prior year, Curry could take us places against teams with weak centers. No question. But in the playoffs (which, yes, he didnt get to play in, never has) you face teams with excellent low post guys. 

Bold Time: *The way this incomplete team played against Miami was more impressive than the 04-05 team was at any point during that year. * It is absolutely true. Now we have that, but with a real roster, largely made possible thanks to the saving of money from the contract we never paid Curry.


Curry should always have stomped all over Brad Miller, but he couldnt. Most teams don't have a Brad Miller, but playoffs teams do (or much better). That's why you get to rely on misleading pro-Curry stats.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Bold Time: *The way this incomplete team played against Miami was more impressive than the 04-05 team was at any point during that year. * It is absolutely true. Now we have that, but with a real roster, largely made possible thanks to the saving of money from the contract we never paid Curry.


Wow. I disagree. Taking it to the world champion Pistons and basically beating all comers in 04-05 was the most impressive thing I've seen this Bulls team do since MJ. We actually had a chance against Washington... 2-0 lead.... Miami just toyed with us before waking up and running away with the title. We jumped all over them @ the UC for a couple games... it was impressive... but we never had a chance to actually win that series. The Washington series was decided by a couple of heartbreaking plays... that series was neck and neck. The deathly silence at the UC for Game 6 in this years series showed just how ahead of us the Heat were. We were soundly beaten.

Not signing Curry only led to negligible cap savings. I think you are way off on that one.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow. I disagree. Taking it to the world champion Pistons and basically beating all comers in 04-05 was the most impressive thing I've seen this Bulls team do since MJ. We actually had a chance against Washington... 2-0 lead.... Miami just toyed with us before waking up and running away with the title. We jumped all over them @ the UC for a couple games... it was impressive... but we never had a chance to actually win that series. The Washington series was decided by a couple of heartbreaking plays... that series was neck and neck. The deathly silence at the UC for Game 6 in this years series showed just how ahead of us the Heat were. We were soundly beaten.
> 
> Not signing Curry only led to negligible cap savings. I think you are way off on that one.


Miami toyed with us? Much of that series was quite the opposite. It came down to us not being able to defend, just like it did all year. that's due to size problems. we could not hold down the paint as Wade tore right thru to the hole in crunch time.

We can say "a bucket here or a bucket there wouldve made a difference" for either Washington or Miami. But Miami has the ring, Washington that year was swiftly demolished by a worse Miami team.


I mean, youre basing all that on the Wizards being this great team, I just dont see it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> The prior year, Curry could take us places against teams with weak centers. No question. But in the playoffs (which, yes, he didnt get to play in, never has) you face teams with excellent low post guys.
> 
> Bold Time: *The way this incomplete team played against Miami was more impressive than the 04-05 team was at any point during that year. * It is absolutely true. Now we have that, but with a real roster, largely made possible thanks to the saving of money from the contract we never paid Curry.
> 
> ...


Thats rep-worthy.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

transplant said:


> As expected, this thread has brought out many "golden oldie" arguments. Very nostalgiac.


Yeah, nothing does it magic better than mentioning JC or Curry or Paxon's name in one's strating post to creat instant 10 page thread. 

It's crazy. It's sickening. It's funny. It's entertaining. 

Basically it's the story of Bulls forum.

:banana:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Miami toyed with us? Much of that series was quite the opposite.


I told you, with some its not about what happens on the basketball court. The truth evolves to fit the argument.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

also, are you forgetting how frustratingly turnover prone that 04-05 team was? Last year's started out that way but made strides. Last year was a process. This year will be a process. But a lot more can be accomplished and worked for when you have multiple offensive threats.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> We can say "a bucket here or a bucket there wouldve made a difference" for either Washington or Miami. But Miami has the ring, Washington that year was swiftly demolished by a worse Miami team.
> 
> 
> I mean, youre basing all that on the Wizards being this great team, I just dont see it.



Right, but we were without Deng and Curry in that Wizards series.

We got to play that weaker than Miami team due to being the #3 team in the East with Curry as our leading scorer and #2 in MPG and Chandler as our leading rebounder and shot blocker. Home court and a weaker opponent did play a role, I agree.

If you really think that the Bulls had a legit chance to beat the Miami Heat in a 7 game series last season, then you really must think we're NBA Title bound right now, since the Bulls significantly improved from last years squad. We adjusted well in games 3 and 4 and came at Miami with a different style that they were not ready for, IMO.... that and SHAQ had foul trouble. A couple adjustments by Riley and a splash of cold water to the face for all the vets on Miami and it was bye bye bullies.

If you really think that the Miami series was as tightly contested as the Washington series, then we'll just have to disagree. If you want to think that, then fine, I'm not going to change your mind.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> also, are you forgetting how frustratingly turnover prone that 04-05 team was? Last year's started out that way but made strides. Last year was a process. This year will be a process. But a lot more can be accomplished and worked for when you have multiple offensive threats.


Right... the 04-05 team had all the same offensive theats as this years team, except we had a legit post presence.

Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng and Thomas (maybe).

Same 1st four in 04-05 except our leading scorer was Curry and he did almost all his damage from the inside.

Unless TT/Thabo really make strides, its going to likely be more drive n' dish, just like last year, except replace Chandler with Wallace.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not signing Curry only led to negligible cap savings.


Without those "negligible cap savings", Ben Wallace would still be a Piston.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Without those "negligible cap savings", Ben Wallace would still be a Piston.


Really? Did the contract have to be frontloaded?

It was my understanding that we still could have done the Wallace deal without the Curry trade.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Really? Did the contract have to be frontloaded?
> 
> It was my understanding that we still could have done the Wallace deal without the Curry trade.


We appear to have different understandings....

What is Curry's salary this season?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you really think that the Bulls had a legit chance to beat the Miami Heat in a 7 game series last season, then you really must think we're NBA Title bound right now, since the Bulls significantly improved from last years squad.



A bunch of NBA columnist/pundit types predicted the Bulls would win against Miami. Now a number of them see them as potentially being Eastern Conference champions. So, I don't think it's that far afield.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Wynn said:


> We appear to have different understandings....
> 
> What is Curry's salary this season?


$8.8MM according to this.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> A bunch of NBA columnist/pundit types predicted the Bulls would win against Miami. Now a number of them see them as potentially being Eastern Conference champions. So, I don't think it's that far afield.


i do remember Pip predicting the bulls in an upset.


----------



## Silvio Dante (Jul 4, 2006)

Basghetti80 said:


> We have no idea how lucky we are to have Paxson. Without a doubt a top 5 GM in the league and the summer that he had been planning for worked perfectly. We could not have asked for a better offseason and I still do not think he is done. Nothing major is coming mind you, like a Gooden trade but another big will be brought in I firmly believe that. I do not know who but I think Paxson does. No one though for a lot of years and no one that requires a lot of minutes. Remember he still has the Knicks pick in his back pocket for next year to get another big and even if it is not Oden it could be someone like Noah. Now think about that Noah, Thomas, Wallace all upfront and still have Deng, Nocioni, and Khyrapa. Now tell me why you would add someone longterm to that. No need to. Wallace, Brown plus another big for year is more than enough especially with our other young kids
> Now come February you can bet that Paxson will inquire about something big if we look to be in position to go for a ring and he will have the assets to do it but until then what he has assembled now might be the deepest, most versatile team in the entire NBA and I do not think I am overstating that. There are a LOT of teams and GMs that would KILL to be in the Bulls situation. Remember that the next time we complain about someone so insignificant like Smith. We are extremely lucky fans. Do not forget it.


ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, ON THE MONEY!

Like I've said before, JR Smith is small potatos, folks. For those upset that he wasn't given a chance, please relax. You're talking about a guy who hits less than 40% of his shots. He's not the second coming of MJ, or Kobe and anyone else. He's a talented player who needs to grow up. He would not have had that opportunity here in Chicago. Pax has done him a HUGE favor by shipping him out of town to a team that WILL give him an opportunity. As for the "we could've got more for him" crowd ... you don't know that---you assume it, but you don't know that. Pax has demonstrated time and again that he knows what he's doing. Is Pax perfect? No, but he's not dumb, either. As Basghetti80 wrote to open this thread, we, as Bulls fans, should consider ourselves lucky to have such a heady GM running our team. He has retooled to Bulls into being serious contenders in only 3 years. When he took over the job, he had virtually a load of garbage, and if you really sit back and take it all in, I believe you'll agree that he has made chicken salad out of chickens..t.

We have a smart, savvy and deep team, guys. I also agree that there is one more move to be made, and Pax knows that and has a handle on what to do. Right now, our spare parts aren't going to land us that major impact player, but in due time, between now and the February trading deadline, if there is anyone out there worth getting that makes sense, Pax is going to do it.

Relax, we're in GREAT shape! :cheers: :allhail:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> $8.8MM according to this.



This post outlines the situation IMO.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3771655&postcount=20


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Really? Did the contract have to be frontloaded?
> 
> It was my understanding that we still could have done the Wallace deal without the Curry trade.


Thanks to the link that *Tom!* provided, if we had Big Ed under contract, his ~$8.8MM would have counted against our ~$17MM, leaving us only ~$9.2MM with which to sign Wallace. No matter how you structure the deal, I doubt that would do it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Thanks to the link that *Tom!* provided, if we had Big Ed under contract, his ~$8.8MM would have counted against our ~$17MM, leaving us only ~$9.2MM with which to sign Wallace. No matter how you structure the deal, I doubt that would do it.


Right, but we would not have TT, Krap-ya or Sweetney. You are neglecting to consider that.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> This post outlines the situation IMO.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3771655&postcount=20


Oops, missed this when I posted my last.....

Given that Sweets, Krhyapa, and TT are all on very small (by NBA standard) contracts, this is faulty math. The Bull is required to have at least a 14 man roster (right?). Whether Krhyapa, Thomas, and Sweets came to us as a part of the Curry trade or not, there would have to be three bodies in similar salary slots....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Khryapa: 1,172,400
Sweetney: 2,696,956
Thomas: 3,400,000
----------------------
7,369,356 


Curry: 8,800,000



8,800,000 - 7,369,356 = 1,430,644

We could have Wallace and Curry.

Pay the 14th and 15th man the minimum. Like they freaking matter.


We could have had both. End of discussion.

Given your dislike of Curry, especially when he was a Bull, I would not expect you to go for this.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Khryapa: 1,172,400
> Sweetney: 2,696,956
> Thomas: 3,400,000
> ----------------------
> ...


But then we wouldn't have Tyrus Thomas. I'll take Thomas, Sweets and Khryapa over Curry because I honestly believe Thomas is going to be a better player than Eddy Curry. Found money or not, it's legal tender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> But then we wouldn't have Tyrus Thomas. I'll take Thomas, Sweets and Khryapa over Curry because I honestly believe Thomas is going to be a better player than Eddy Curry. Found money or not, it's legal tender.


Its only TT versus Curry since the other two don't really make much of a difference.

We'll see how it plays out. The "found money" was a Godsend. What me worry?

We would have been a better team last year with Curry and I think Curry/Wallace would be a better starting 4/5 than PJ/Wallace. Could have built upon our 47 win season last year instead of regressing.


Perhaps TT makes big strides in his 1st year.... we'll see.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its only TT versus Curry since the other two don't really make much of a difference.
> 
> We'll see how it plays out.


difficult to judge anymore. curry is a much better player with kirk and duhon playing the point.
(though he is a better rebounder w/o tyson and AD)


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its only TT versus Curry since the other two don't really make much of a difference.


*Big Ed in 2005-2006*

25.9mpg 13.6ppg 6.0rpg 0.3apg 0.39spg 2.49TO

*Sweets + Krhyapa in 2005-2006*

40.1mpg 13.9ppg 9.7rpg 2.2apg 1.01spg 2.47TO

For a pair of guys who "don't really make much of a difference", their numbers seem awfully close to what we lost in Big Ed.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its only TT versus Curry since the other two don't really make much of a difference.
> 
> We'll see how it plays out. The "found money" was a Godsend. What me worry?
> 
> ...


K4E, you seems to be against almost all key moves made by Paxon.

You are against JR trade & wish he is still on the team.
You are against JC trade & wish he is still on the team.
You are against EC trade & wish he is still on the team.
You are against TC trade & wish he is still on the team.

Now here is your team would look like if every move went your way

Kirk ($3M?)
Ben ($3M?)
JC ($8M?)
Rose ($16M)
Noc ($2M?)
Deng ($2M?)
EC ($8M or could be $10M, same as Tyson)
Tyson ($10M)

This would be our core roster and budget of roughly $54M.

Do you really want that team over this team?

Kirk
Ben
Thabo
Noc
Deng
TT
PJ
Big Ben


To me, it is easy choice.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Oops, missed this when I posted my last.....
> 
> Given that Sweets, Krhyapa, and TT are all on very small (by NBA standard) contracts, this is faulty math. The Bull is required to have at least a 14 man roster (right?). Whether Krhyapa, Thomas, and Sweets came to us as a part of the Curry trade or not, there would have to be three bodies in similar salary slots....


No, this is incorrect.

Sweets will get $2.7M this year. TT will get $2.6M this year. Khyrapa will get $1.2M. Add that up and it's $6.5M.

The Bulls are not required to have a 14 man roster. The rule you're thinking of is that a team is charged the rookie minimum for each player under 12 that it doesn't have. That'd be $412k x 2 to make up for the two less guys. So add $824k to the ledger and the Bulls would have $3.124M less if they'd kept Curry. That's less, but not a lot less, and it would still be enough to offer the same contract to Wallace that we appear to be giving him, just as K4E suggests.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> But then we wouldn't have Tyrus Thomas. I'll take Thomas, Sweets and Khryapa over Curry because I honestly believe Thomas is going to be a better player than Eddy Curry. Found money or not, it's legal tender.


I think that's the money point. I'm a big fan of Curry, but Thomas I'm pretty sold on Thomas a really, really good player.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Khryapa: 1,172,400
> Sweetney: 2,696,956
> Thomas: 3,400,000
> ----------------------
> ...


this isn't quite accurate, but that doesn't suprise me. The more accurate representation is to throw out Thomas and put the 20th pick in its' place. I'm guessing the difference between the #4 pick and the #20 pick is something in the neighborhood of $2.0 mil. So now you're looking at $3.4 mil. If we had $17.5 mil available that would knock that number down to $14.1 mil. It might have been enough to get Wallace if you don't front-load the contract - it might not. I'd also contend that Pax would have added more, possibly longer term contracts around Curry and Chandler had Curry not been traded, which would have shrunk that $14.1 mil amount further.

Hardly an end of discussion.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> this isn't quite accurate, but that doesn't suprise me. The more accurate representation is to throw out Thomas and put the 20th pick in its' place. I'm guessing the difference between the #4 pick and the #20 pick is something in the neighborhood of $2.0 mil. So now you're looking at $3.4 mil. If we had $17.5 mil available that would knock that number down to $14.1 mil. It might have been enough to get Wallace if you don't front-load the contract - it might not. I'd also contend that Pax would have added more, possibly longer term contracts around Curry and Chandler had Curry not been traded, which would have shrunk that $14.1 mil amount further.
> 
> Hardly an end of discussion.


$14.1M as a starting salary... with the standard 8% raises for a player joining a new team, works out to 4 years and $63M. So there's really no doubt that, the Bulls could have made the same total contract offer to Ben if they'd only had $14M.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Do draft picks impact capspace before they're signed to a contract?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Do draft picks impact capspace before they're signed to a contract?


Yep

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#43



> *43. Do draft picks count against the team's salary cap? If so, how much?
> *
> Unsigned first round picks are included in team salary immediately upon their selection in the draft. They count as 100% of the scale salary for that pick, unless there is a verbal agreement for a higher salary. An incident occurred prior to the 1997-98 season when Vancouver's first round pick, Antonio Daniels, revealed in an interview that he and the team had verbally agreed to a contract starting at the maximum salary (120% of the scale amount). Since verbal agreements apply to the salary cap, the league then changed the team's cap figure from the scale amount to 120% of scale. Once a first round pick signs a contract, his actual salary is included in the team salary, of course.
> 
> ...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> $14.1M as a starting salary... with the standard 8% raises for a player joining a new team, works out to 4 years and $63M. So there's really no doubt that, the Bulls could have made the same total contract offer to Ben if they'd only had $14M.


Probably. My contention is that it wasn't as cut and dried as Kukoc 4 Ever was making it out to be and the only reason it would have worked was that the cap figure was about $1.5 million higher than expected. That and the numeric representation was flat-out incorrect (that seems to happen quite a bit around here for some reason - agendas to uphold?)

I'd also say that a front-loaded contract is much more appealing to a player than a back-loaded contract. A dollar sooner in time is more valueable than a dollar later in time - present value and all that sort of stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't at least some sort of a mitigating factor in Wallace comming here. His front loaded contract is quite a bit more lucrative over time than a traditional back loaded one. But, the Bulls being the penny-pinching organization that they are would surely prefer the back loaded contract because just as that contract is less valueable to Wallace, it's more valueable to the Bulls because they'd have use of more money for a longer length of time.

Things are never as simple as they seem.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

OK, so it would have been possible to have Wallace and Curry, right?

Good.

Oh, it was the frontloading of the contract that wooed Wallace, huh? Right.

Wallace said he was flexible. The thing is being frontloaded to help the Bulls out later in the contract. Pinching pennies. Tax avoidance. 

Now we're making time value of money arguments. Funny, those were rejected out of hand when analyzing the lucrative, 20 year deal the Bulls were offering Curry.

Do you know the yearly dollar amounts of the contract frontloaded vs. backloaded? Do you think that perhaps they worked it out so the NPVs are equal? Maybe?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace said he was flexible. The thing is being frontloaded to help the Bulls out later in the contract. Pinching pennies.


Frontloading a contract on Wallace makes sense to me. I don't believe this deal saves the Bulls money as organization but it does help with salary cap issues in future years. I think it's a shrewd move.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Frontloading a contract on Wallace makes sense to me. I don't believe this deal saves the Bulls money as organization but it does help with salary cap issues in future years. I think it's a shrewd move.



It makes sense.... to give the Bulls org what they crave more than victories.... financial flexibility.

Its hardly shrewd.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It makes sense.... to give the Bulls org what they crave more than victories.... financial flexibility.
> 
> Its hardly shrewd.


 I could give two craps if helps the owners financially, It helps the salary cap in future years. K4E, you appeared more positive about this team when the were losing but had potential but now that the our team is on the cusp of winning 60 games this season, you've become a huge crumudgeon who seems to be looking for things to upset him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> I could give two craps if helps the owners financially, It helps the salary cap in future years. K4E, you appeared more positive about this team when the were losing but had potential but now that the our team is on the cusp of winning 60 games this season, you've become a huge crumudgeon who seems to be looking for things to upset him.


Hardly... I just call a cheap move a cheap move and a salary dump a salary dump.

If you want to argue otherwise, feel free.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> It makes sense.... to give the Bulls org what they crave more than victories.... financial flexibility.



As though cap flexibility has nothing to do with Ws and Ls. Oh wait, it just netted us Ben Wallace.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As though cap flexibility has nothing to do with Ws and Ls. Oh wait, it just netted us Ben Wallace.


How does the Chandler dump help us W/L wise?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

The Tyson trade was a salary dump. The JR trade is a salary dump and I don't have a problem with either trade. 

Tyson's season was beyond painful. How many times did Tyson get called for setting illegal screens? How freekin hard is it to set a screen? I am asking, it's the easiest freekin thing in the world and it should be an instinctive thing for a NBA player but yet Tyson struggled at the easiest of plays. 
Tyson and Sweetney's foul trouble cost the Bulls greatly in 05-06. Lack of production can be attributed to lack of a supporting cast but dumb fouls, are dumb fouls. Tyson was making 11 million and couldn't play up to it. Hell at his rate of fouling, he couldn't stay on the court. Tyson isn't a smart basketball player.

I am glad New Orleans judged Tyson to be worth his contract and let the Bulls off the hook. To think we get back a quality player like PJ Brown and the ability to get a better 4 next season works for me. Really how tough is it to get a quality 4? Elton Brand was traded for a tall highschooler that has proven to indeed be tall.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How does the Chandler dump help us W/L wise?



It certainly doesn't hurt us next season. After that remains to be seen. It could hurt. It could help if we are able to resign our core and other players like Tyrus, next year's pick, and so on. It can't be summarily concluded that it hurts.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, so it would have been possible to have Wallace and Curry, right?
> 
> Good.


Possible - yes. I never said it wasn't. Just that it wasn't so cut and dried as you made it out to be. If the salary cap number had been what it was projected to be, it wouldn't have been. Also, you used false numbers in your example, but that's perfectly fine if you're trying to make a point - right? Good.



> Oh, it was the frontloading of the contract that wooed Wallace, huh? Right.


I believe I wrote that frontloading the contract could have been a mitigating factor - not the sole reason Wallce took the deal. Is reading comprehension that much of a problem for you?



> Wallace said he was flexible. The thing is being frontloaded to help the Bulls out later in the contract. Pinching pennies. Tax avoidance.
> 
> Now we're making time value of money arguments. Funny, those were rejected out of hand when analyzing the lucrative, 20 year deal the Bulls were offering Curry.
> 
> Do you know the yearly dollar amounts of the contract frontloaded vs. backloaded? Do you think that perhaps they worked it out so the NPVs are equal? Maybe?


You really should just stop typing because you don't have much concept of Present Value. A frontloaded contract costs the Bulls more over time - do you disagree with this? If it is pinching pennies, a smart company would defer payments as late as possible to avoid not having the use of that money for as long as possible. Frontloading a contract is not pinching pennies - it costs more.

With Curry, I never had an issue with dismissing anything out of hand. You must have me confused with someone else. See, I understand the concept and knew that the income stream they were propsing to Curry really wasn't all that much and Curry was right to refuse it.

No, I don't know the yearly amounts of the contracts but I do know that if you change the income streams by so much as a dollar, the NPValues are different. Also NBA contracts are constrained by the change in payments from year to year by a pre-specified percentage and so, by default, if you move more money up front, there has to be less money in the back end and hence the Present Value would be different between the two income streams.

Again, all I'm saying is that having Curry and getting Wallace wasn't as simple as you make it out to be. Never let objectivity or consideration that maybe you don't know what in the hell you're talking about stand in the way of a good old fashioned Bulls Bashing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It certainly doesn't hurt us next season.


Really? Even at 20 minutes a game, you don't think Tyson would be helpful?

What about as insurance to a Wallace injury?

Allen gives you the same level of production as PJ. If we get playoff Allen, its even better.

Troy Murphy / Pietrus would have been a better option as well W/L wise this season.




jnjr79 said:


> It could help if we are able to resign our core and other players like Tyrus, next year's pick, and so on.


The Bulls can do that with or without the Chandler deal.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Really? Even at 20 minutes a game, you don't think Tyson would be helpful?
> 
> What about as insurance to a Wallace injury?
> 
> ...



I disagree. I expect PJ to contribute more than Tyson this season. PJ has historically been a better player, and he will provide more consistency and leadership than we can realistically have expected Chandler to offer.




kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls can do that with or without the Chandler deal.


I understand it's "possible," but understanding what most owners of the league will permit their GMs to do, and specifically what ours will permit, that's not realistic.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> You really should just stop typing because you don't have much concept of Present Value. A frontloaded contract costs the Bulls more over time - do you disagree with this?





fl_flash said:


> No, I don't know the yearly amounts of the contracts but I do know that if you change the income streams by so much as a dollar, the NPValues are different. Also NBA contracts are constrained by the change in payments from year to year by a pre-specified percentage and so, by default, if you move more money up front, there has to be less money in the back end and hence the Present Value would be different between the two income streams.


Depends on what the yearly amounts are dude. That's why I asked. LOL.

OK, That's not his name, maybe you can correct me where I'm wrong.

Assumptions
Discount rate: 10%
Max increase / decrease: 8% (change it to whatever the CBA allows, or correct me on the CBA rule, that's fine. I'll change the #s to give you the same NPV).



Amount of Increase / Decrease 
8%

Discount Rate	
10%	
<pre>
1 2 3 4 5
Front-load $16.00 $14.72 $13.54 $12.46 $11.46 

NPV
$52.51

1 2 3 4 5
Back-load	$11.98 $12.94 $13.97 $15.09 $16.30 

NPV
$52.51 
</pre>


I may be off on a CBA rule, I'll admit. 

But I'm here for a NPV lesson. Teach me. This is genuine sentiment and not baiting, right?


I think you are wrong on this one, just like you were wrong on the Curry/Wallace issue.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> It makes sense.... to give the Bulls org what they crave more than victories.... financial flexibility.
> 
> Its hardly shrewd.


I am having a really hard time figuring out why this viewpoint needs to be aired out by you in virtually every substantial thread today. 

You're entitled to your opinion, and frankly the "In Pax We Trust" thread is probably the best place for this, but the horse has been beaten 'till it's Elmer's at this point, dude.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/allstar_051117.html

*Chandler*, Deng, Gordon & Hinrich Highlight 2006 All-Star Ballot


*November 17, 2005* – The NBA announced today that *Tyson Chandler*, *Luol Deng*, *Ben Gordon* and *Kirk Hinrich* will represent the Chicago Bulls as All-Star Balloting begins today, giving fans worldwide the opportunity to vote for their favorite players as starters for the 55th NBA All-Star Game.

The 120 players on the ballot were selected by a panel of media experts who regularly cover the NBA. This year’s panel included Steve Aschburner (Minneapolis Star Tribune/ President, Professional Basketball Writers’ Association), Ric Bucher (ESPN the Magazine), Ernie Johnson (Turner Sports), Mike Monroe (San Antonio Express News) and Sam Smith (Chicago Tribune).


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/allstar_051117.html
> 
> *Chandler*, Deng, Gordon & Hinrich Highlight 2006 All-Star Ballot
> 
> ...


At that point in the season the only other Bull you could've made a case for would've been, sadly enough, Mike Sweetney. Noc was averaging 11.5 a game.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

jbulls said:


> At that point in the season the only other Bull you could've made a case for would been, sadly enough, Mike Sweetney. Noc was averaging 11.5 a game.



Yeah, I don't really see the point here. He was thought at that point in time to be one of the top 4 on the team? Ok.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I understand it's "possible," but understanding what most owners of the league will permit their GMs to do, and specifically what ours will permit, that's not realistic.



I think its perfectly reasonable and realistic to expect our team to be, at least, in the top 1/4 of the league in payroll.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think its perfectly reasonable and realistic to expect our team to be, at least, in the top 1/4 of the league in payroll.


We know!


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

What's Reinsdorf's PER? I bet it's low. Trade Reinsdorf.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> What's Reinsdorf's PER? I bet it's low. Trade Reinsdorf.


Amen.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I think we could have retained Curry and still had the space to sign Wallace. Its tight, but I think we could have. 

To me this misses two points.

First, Paxson (much to his discredit as I always say) would have kept Curry if it were not for his perceptions of the existence of a dangerous health risk. 

Second, we'd still have Curry and probably on his contract or a greater contract than he has now. That really isn't a good thing. Then consider we wouldn't have:

(a) Tyrus Thomas, 
(b) Viktor Khryapa, 
(c) Michael Sweetney, 
(d) the Knicks first round pick in the 2007 draft, and 
(e) arguably Rodney Carney instead of our new golden child Thabo (it was the Knicks 2007 second rounder - the most valuable of the second rounders available to Chicago - that the Bulls traded to Philly along with Carney).

It doesn't matter if we could have Curry and Wallace. What matters is we don't have Curry (which is a good thing) and we do have all these other neat things instead (which is an even better thing). And thank God Almighty for that.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i love how kukoc goes and says we need way more frontcourt scoring, but then turns around and says Chandler still had a role here, and that he couldve played alongside Wallace (you must mean this if you want to keep him for 20 min per game)

Wallace will do everything Chandler did, but better, for 35 min per game. and our other frontcourt player will actually be able to catch a ball and dunk it. No need for Chandler!


any one of these make Chandler's salary loseable: Sweetney having his best year in hopes of a contract, Tyrus making strides, Nocioni doing what he was doing last year. One of those will happen.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think its perfectly reasonable and realistic to expect our team to be, at least, in the top 1/4 of the league in payroll.


we will be when it means locking up our young core, which has been excellent. Chandler is not one of those, so you move his salary elsewhere to be able to keep the other guys. Especially now that Chandler has no role here. What about that is so hard to understand?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

In hindsight, the Curry deal proved to be an excellent trade, particularly so if we get a top 4 pick next year. In contrast, offloading Tyson was simply the Bulls being cheap, most likely Pax being constrained by Reinsdork's "small markert" thinking and all-around Sterling like ways. Maybe if Pax would've gotten more for Chandler, I would feel better about it. But he got crap, dumping salary.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Depends on what the yearly amounts are dude. That's why I asked. LOL.
> 
> OK, That's not his name, maybe you can correct me where I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


Hahahahahahahha!

You must be completely hard up to try to prove a point and you just keep digging yourself a bigger hole. in the first payment stream, the payments equal $68.18. In the second payment stream, the payments equal $70.28. A difference of $2.1. Now, pay attention... OF COURSE THE PRESENT VALUE OF BOTH ARE THE SAME BECAUSE THE TOTAL OF THE PAYMENTS IS DIFFERENT. The second payment stream has to include more money becuse the larger sums are paid out later in time.

On the whole Curry/Wallace "issue" (I didn't know it had grown to such epic proportions, but whatever) - and this will be the fourth time I'll type this so maybe it'll finally sink in - I never said it wasn't possible. I've agreed that it was possible (again) just that it wasn't as much of a slam dunk as you purport it to be. That's all. Nothing more. Your adolescent desire to make something more out of it is what is driving this whole thing. Get over it.

Good grief. I'm done with you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to debate with you when you have no interest in honest debate and I'm not going to pollute this thread any further. I don't particularly like wasting my time with folks who have to doctor numbers to make a point and then completely screw up in the process.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> What's Reinsdorf's PER? I bet it's low. Trade Reinsdorf.


I am almost willing to co-sign.

What can you offer me? A case of beer?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Really? Even at 20 minutes a game, you don't think Tyson would be helpful?
> 
> What about as insurance to a Wallace injury?


When you argue for Curry being kept, you make some interesting points and argue reasonably.

But when you argue that Tyson should be kept, it very much sounds like you are just doing it so you can extend your overall argument about Pax as far as it can go. 

A $10 million per year insurance for Ben? Good lord. You act as if Chandler is the only guy who can be that. We have PJ Brown to do that, and when he is gone we'll have another player to do that. It's called a backup PF.


It isnt that hard to replace what Tyson does. It just isn't. You can have a rebounder for a lot cheaper. and dont even get me started on his great defense: he's a good WEAKSIDE shotblocker. for $10 mil, we weren't even getting a man-up low post defender.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> It isnt that hard to replace what Tyson does. It just isn't. You can have a rebounder for a lot cheaper. and dont even get me started on his great defense: he's a good WEAKSIDE shotblocker. for $10 mil, we weren't even getting a man-up low post defender.


Let's revisit this in 1 or 2 years. Obviously, Pax thought Chandler was very hard to replace last summer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> But when you argue that Tyson should be kept, it very much sounds like you are just doing it so you can extend your overall argument about Pax as far as it can go.


Tired of repeating...

1.) Make a better trade for Chandler (Murphy/Pietrus… others? “high demand”)
2.) Hold out for a better trade for Chandler (consolidation deal, other)
3.) Worst case, Chandler is the backup for Wallace this season and you can dump him next season. No tax penalty. Same payroll as this year. Malik Allen plays the PJ Brown role just fine.

Chandler was a player in demand and the Bulls took the best salary dump available.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, so it would have been possible to have Wallace and Curry, right?


Yes, salary-wise it would've been feasible, but we know that the Curry trade wasn't merely a salary dump. You know that. I mean, is this really even even worth arguing? Yes, the Bulls' steadfast demands last summer may have indeed been unjustified. But without those demands being met, Curry wasn't coming back. Period. So, I just think it's futile to argue whether we could've had Curry and Wallace. K4E, just stick with the Chandler/Wallace schpeel. You have something there. We could've kept Chandler.

But also, I was just curious...would it have been possible to also have Jalen and Jamal? I mean, wasn't dumping them a sure sign that the Bulls weren't committing to building a contending team? That was the mantra, right? While your gripes over the Chandler deal are certainly merited, it still doesn't change the fact that cap space has netted us a highly valuable and productive asset. Without dumping Jalen and Jamal, Wallace wouldn't be here. Simple as that.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Tyson is a 23 year old 7'1" player who has proven to be a terror defensively (particularly at help defense) and rebounding. Last year he had a bad season but it was also the offseason when he negotiated his contract and couldn't work out full speed as a result. The season before, when he had a big body center next to him, he was very effective. He is making 10 mil a year or thereabouts but so is Nene, so is Dalembert, so are a lot of only "ok" big men, big men are at a premium in the league. Personally I see no reason not to have kept Chandler and let him back up the power forward and center positions...except for the obvious...to save money. There were other, better deals out there for Chandler too, anyone who doesn't think there was, I don't really know what to tell ya. But the Bulls didn't take them because they were dumping salary for an expiring contract. Of course maybe Pax has a broader vision, maybe he is setting things up to sign Lebron in three years? I don't know, on the surface it was a bad move, just like the Smith trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Yes, salary-wise it would've been feasible, but we know that the Curry trade wasn't merely a salary dump. You know that. I mean, is this really even even worth arguing? Yes, the Bulls' steadfast demands last summer may have indeed been unjustified. But without those demands being met, Curry wasn't coming back. Period. So, I just think it's futile to argue whether we could've had Curry and Wallace. K4E, just stick with the Chandler/Wallace schpeel. You have something there. We could've kept Chandler.


Steadfast DNA test demands, steadfast avoidance of the luxury tax 1-2 years in advance... whatever.





> But also, I was just curious...would it have been possible to also have Jalen and Jamal? That was the mantra, right?


No, I supported the Jalen Rose trade. Upset by having to lose Marshall in the process and going from playoff guarantee to BLOW UP THE TEAM!!!! in one month. Then, it turns out we missed out on Wade so Paxson could hold onto Marshall.. only to dump him a couple months later. Ugh.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tired of repeating...
> 
> 1.) Make a better trade for Chandler (Murphy/Pietrus… others? “high demand”)
> 2.) Hold out for a better trade for Chandler (consolidation deal, other)
> ...


Still not sure I've heard any evidence of an actual deal Paxson avoided for the "in demand" Chandler. Was it McGraw that mentioned, in passing, that there had been interest in Chandler? I sure wish I had more details.

I think Paxson moved him now because he didn't want him, and thinks the team is better without him every bit as much as it clears Tyson's salary.

I don't think Tyson was as useful as is being made out and I don't think Brown is as washed up as being made out.

As to Murphy (or possibly Murphy/Pietrus) Pietrus no longer is really needed by the Bulls, with the acquisition of Thabo.

As to Murphy:



kukoc4ever said:


> Back to the trade... Troy Murphy is a meaningless player. I've seen Chandler be a main cog in our only winning team since MJ. Unless Simmons or O'Bryant are going to be better than Chandler, then I don't do the trade.



http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3701826&#post3701826
^^^
("the trade"=Murphy+Pietrus+#16 for Chandler)


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Steadfast DNA test demands, steadfast avoidance of the luxury tax 1-2 years in advance... whatever.


So avoiding the luxury task was really what that whole fiasco was about? Whatever.



kukoc4ever said:


> No, I supported the Jalen Rose trade.


That's news to me. Wasn't he the best player on a team that went to the finals? Why on earth would we have wanted to trade him? I mean, we're the most profitable team in the league. Why oh why should we have felt compelled to dump that contract?

And what about the Jamal trade? Would Jamal, Eddy, and Wallace have been feasible?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As to Murphy:


Its all in the framing.

If Troy Murphy is the pot of gold at the end of a 3 year Cap Space rainbow, then no thanks.

As an alternative to a disgusting salary dump and we get the French Guy? Sign me up. Troy Murphy is better than PJ Brown.

If I knew the plan was to dump chandler, then do the trade. Please. ASAP.




Now we can go back to talking about firing Paxson b/c be drafted Tyrus Thomas.....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Would Jamal, Eddy, and Wallace have been feasible?



If Chandler was not resigned, I've read that it would have.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As to Murphy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That'll leave a mark. Reminds me of the ripping of the Bulls as Grizzlies East during the 47 win season only to hold them up as a Platonic Form after the fact. 

OT: I googled Farley to get a picture to go along with the "That'll leave a mark" comment (couldn't find one I liked) and came across a website that has crime scene photos of his corpse after he over-dosed. You Chicago folks might have seen these way back when, but I hadn't. Frightening stuff. Talk about a powerful poster to convince kids not to take drugs. I've not seen anything like it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Still not sure I've heard any evidence of an actual deal Paxson avoided for the "in demand" Chandler. Was it McGraw that mentioned, in passing, that there had been interest in Chandler? I sure wish I had more details.


It was mentioned on this message board... Chad Ford brought it up in his weekly chat.

Attack the Source?


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Chandler was not resigned, I've read that it would have.


Oh, so we would've had to lose Chandler for nothing? And I'm sure you would've been right on board for that one.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> So avoiding the luxury task was really what that whole fiasco was about? Whatever.
> 
> 
> That's news to me. Wasn't he the best player on a team that went to the finals? Why on earth would we have wanted to trade him? I mean, we're the most profitable team in the league. Why oh why should we have felt compelled to dump that contract?


Because he was a CANCER. And by the time the trade happened, EVERYONE knew it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Oh, so we would've had to lose Chandler for nothing? And I'm sure you would've been right on board for that one.


You asked if it was feasible.


No doubt, my preference, along with Paxson's, was to bring back AD, Curry and Chandler and build upon the young, #3 team in the East squad.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It was mentioned on this message board... Chad Ford brought it up in his weekly chat.
> 
> Attack the Source?


Not attacking anything. Can't evaluate whether the "interest" would have led to a better trade without details.

How about you?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Still not sure I've heard any evidence of an actual deal Paxson avoided for the "in demand" Chandler. Was it McGraw that mentioned, in passing, that there had been interest in Chandler? I sure wish I had more details.
> 
> I think Paxson moved him now because he didn't want him, and thinks the team is better without him every bit as much as it clears Tyson's salary.
> 
> ...


*From GoodHope*
Q: You implied in your column on the Wallace signing that Paxson was "urged" to go after Big Ben by Reinsdorf, at the prompting of Tellem. Can you give a little more detail on that dynamic? Was Paxson just playing it close to the vest, or did he really change horses midstream and go after Wallace full bore and jettison Tyson?

A: I can’t say I know exactly what happened, but I’ve heard there was great debate over chasing Wallace. Ultimately, the decision to go after him was Pax’s call and *it sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson, especially knowing there was pretty strong interest around the league.*


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> 1.) Make a better trade for Chandler (Murphy/Pietrus… others? “high demand”)


If he was in such "high demand", you'd think teams would offer more than an overpaid big man who they've desperately tried to rid themselves of for over a season (Boozer, Murphy), or guys who'll they lose for nothing if things continue as is (Wilcox, Harrington). And we're not even sure that half of those were even offered, so in the end 2 offers hardly qualifies as in high demand.


> Worst case, Chandler is the backup for Wallace this season and you can dump him next season.


As a backup his value would be non existant, how many teams would be willing to part with an expiring contract before seasons end for a backup big with $45M and 4 years left on his contract.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> 3.) Worst case, Chandler is the backup for Wallace this season and you can dump him next season. No tax penalty. Same payroll as this year. Malik Allen plays the PJ Brown role just fine.
> 
> Chandler was a player in demand and the Bulls took the best salary dump available


Do you have the numbers to show that or are you just making things up? I somehow doubt that keeping Chandler's contract instead of PJ's expiring, extending Kirk, extending Noc, either extending Luol and Ben or having them play out a qualifying offer, and paying a probable top 5 pick= Same payroll as this year. It's not even in the same ballpark. 

It sounds like you think next offseason Chandler could be traded for a contract that expires instantaneously, when in reality it wouldn't expire until 2008 at best. 

And how was Chandler a player in demand? Murphy has negative trade value just like Chandler. Pietrus is a nobody and always will be, just like Chandler. 

You probably started orgasming when you saw McGraw's quote about Chandler being a "player in demand." What a crock.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not attacking anything. Can't evaluate whether the "interest" would have led to a better trade without details.
> 
> How about you?


Those are the details.

Murphy + Pietrus for Chandler.

"demand" from McGraw.

No real downside to keeping Chandler for 1 more season.

Malik Allen gives you what PJ does.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> it sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson, especially knowing there was pretty strong interest around the league.


Interest is far from in high demand, and considering 3/4's of the rumours had us taking back a stiff who would be earning more.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

madox said:


> It sounds like you think next offseason Chandler could be traded for a contract that expires instantaneously, when in reality it wouldn't expire until 2008 at best.


There is no reason the Bulls should not be in the top 1/4 in the league in payroll.




madox said:


> And how was Chandler a player in demand? Murphy has negative trade value just like Chandler. Pietrus is a nobody and always will be, just like Chandler.


McGraw said so

Ford said so

The Hornets traded for him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Now we can go back to talking about firing Paxson b/c be drafted Tyrus Thomas.....


I've already publically apologized to Paxson for having doubted him about Thomas. 

TT still wouldn't have been my pick, but I accept that Pax picked him, knowing what he was doing. I believe the organization made an informed decision about how to better the franchise, and I've moved on.


The team looks much better now than it did a month ago, and I am excited even though I did disagree with the draft pick.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> No real downside to keeping Chandler for 1 more season.


Well there is, if we don't move him when he has some value, we would be stuck with him for the long haul. What then?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

step said:


> Interest is far from in high demand, and considering 3/4's of the rumours had us taking back a stiff who would be earning more.


When your reputation precedes you, and everyone knows you want to dump salary, there's no reason to offer a whole lot.

Though Pietrus and Murphy is a pretty substantial deal in terms of talent.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The team looks much better now than it did a month ago, and I am excited even though I did disagree with the draft pick.


Fine. And if I knew the alternative was a disgusting salary dump, I would have traded Chandler for Murphy/Pietrus in a heartbeat.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> McGraw said so
> 
> Ford said so


Both said KG was certain to be ours, oops.



> The Hornets traded for him.


1 team equals high demand, ok!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Malik Allen gives you what PJ does.


Lets be fair here. PJ Brown is a vastly better defender than Allen.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Those are the details.
> 
> Murphy + Pietrus for Chandler.
> 
> ...


Thomas and Wallace give you what Chandler does. Could he be insurance? Sure.

$10M is a pretty expensive insurance premium.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Though Pietrus and Murphy is a pretty substantial deal in terms of talent.


Talent which would be redundant when looking at our roster. So lets accept another overpaid stiff just because it's the "better" offer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Thomas and Wallace give you what Chandler does. Could he be insurance? Sure.
> 
> $10M is a pretty expensive insurance premium.


Thomas is an undersized PF.

No, he's not going to give you what Wallace / Chandler do.

Different games. You know this though, right? Maybe this explains why you wanted to fire Paxson for daring to draft him.

Beats paying a guy to stay home or for a 37 year old, last leg PF.

And you can hold out for a better trade.

Oh wait, it was just a salary dump, not about improving the team.....


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> You asked if it was feasible.
> 
> 
> No doubt, my preference, along with Paxson's, was to bring back AD, Curry and Chandler and build upon the young, #3 team in the East squad.


Yeah, I asked if it was feasible given the obvious assumption that Chandler would've still been resigned. But anyways, I just want to clarify...if we had indeed re-signed Jamal (while retaining Chandler)...Wallace wouldn't have even been on our radar. Correct?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

PJ Brown is a solid starting PF while Troy Murphy is an overpaid stiff.

OK.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> And you can hold out for a better trade.


What value would he have if he barely got any playing time?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Yeah, I asked if it was feasible given the obvious assumption that Chandler would've still been resigned. But anyways, I just want to clarify...if we had indeed re-signed Jamal (while retaining Chandler)...Wallace wouldn't have even been on our radar. Correct?


Yup... it was a gamble on the Pistons not resigning Wallace (improbable)....


Or perhaps it was the right move... we'll see in a couple years when Wallace is 35.

If the plan is to go for the title now, then signing wallace was a great move.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

step said:


> What value would he have if he barely got any playing time?


There would be 20 minutes for the guy.

Everyone knows what he can do. That's why there was interest in him.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

I just want to clarify something for everyone. The Murphy+Pietrus deal was the only other concrete offer we've heard about. Right?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

step said:


> Talent which would be redundant when looking at our roster. So lets accept another overpaid stiff just because it's the "better" offer.


Too much of made of talent (look at the Knicks roster. Lots of talent...and 23 wins.) by some. Its about the best fit when you're trying to contend. 

I'm sure the Bulls could have gotten better than Cartwright for Oakley too...but obviously Cartwright was the better fit.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fine. And if I knew the alternative was a disgusting salary dump, I would have traded Chandler for Murphy/Pietrus in a heartbeat.


And what if that meant that we couldn't re-sign one or two of Nocioni, Gordon, or Deng because of the stipulations Reinsdorf has given Paxson.

It's funny, because everyone in this thread is arguing the same point. Everyone just has their own little angles in which they are coming from.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> PJ Brown is a solid starting PF while Troy Murphy is an overpaid stiff.


I never said Brown was that but Murphy sure is. What does he give us other than rebouding that makes it worthwhile to trade for him and the $50M remaining on his contract?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tired of repeating...
> 
> 1.) Make a better trade for Chandler (Murphy/Pietrus… others? “high demand”)
> 2.) Hold out for a better trade for Chandler (consolidation deal, other)
> ...



Malik Allen and PJ Brown are very different players.

Murphy/Pietrus is not a better deal, in that we dont need those guys, especially at those salaries. Keep calling it "dumping," but it's very easy to do so when its someone else's money. I have no problem with my team being financially responsible. Things can go really bad otherwise.

Cuban was hailed for extending everyone he could from those old Dallas teams. Then when it came around to locking up the player he really wanted to keep (Nash)... he couldnt do it. Here, we're setting up to lock up the best young players, and this is a good thing.


I just don't get how it's this great disappointment that our payroll is not higher. You've called New York a bad situation when talking about Curry, but then it seems you want payroll to skyrocket here so we can duplicate such a scenario.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Again, it seems like you support this trade just because it was anything but what Pax did.
> 
> 
> I just don't get how it's this great disappointment that our payroll is not higher. You've called New York a bad situation when talking about Curry, but then it seems you want payroll to skyrocket here so we can duplicate such a scenario.


Then we could fire Paxson and hire someone who'd work to bring back the leading scorer on our last winning team and the two individuals who played significant minutes on that winning team and get rid of Hinrich who can't make sikkkkkkk moves like they can.

:yes:

:laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> McGraw said so


Without details. 



> Ford said so


In reference to draft day type deals. Indeed, every rumored deal other than the PJ Brown deal (Murphy and Marion, for example) included draft picks. They were pre-Ben Wallace.

McGraw speculated, I believe, about what he thinks Paxson might have done if the Bulls had not signed Wallace - trade Chandler for Boozer or Camby - but those are not rumored deals. They are possible options. 



> The Hornets traded for him.


In exchange for a package that you think stinks.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> And what if that meant that we couldn't re-sign one or two of Nocioni, Gordon, or Deng because of the stipulations Reinsdorf has given Paxson.
> 
> It's funny, because everyone in this thread is arguing the same point. Everyone just has their own little angles in which they are coming from.


There is no reason that the Bulls, the most profitable team in the league, should not be in the top 1/4 of the leauge when it comes to payroll.


If McGraw/Ford is not enough to accept that there was demand for Chandler, then I'm going to have to ask for concrete proof as to what the stipulations are that Uncle Jerry gave Paxson.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If McGraw/Ford is not enough to accept that there was demand for Chandler, .


There's demand for every player, even Howard Eisley.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is no reason that the Bulls, the most profitable team in the league, should not be in the top 1/4 of the leauge when it comes to payroll.


You have to explain why this is your #1 goal for this team. What is wrong with fielding a winning team WHILE keeping flexibility? financial responsibility means you can do something if you have a broken Ben Wallace back, Andres Nocioni flips headfirst off a motorcycle, Luol Deng switches back to soccer.



You'll cite how great Detroit was, but you'll neglect to mention how they passed up on extending some very good players because they didn't want to get into trouble. were cheap? or did they know they could benefit from waiting til they had a roster they were comforable giving extensions to? fans were mad Okur left. the management knew better than to pay his price.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In exchange for a package that you think stinks.


Its not a good return on an asset. I like the other alternative better, as well as holding out for a better trade with no real salary penalty this season.

PJ will be OK this year. Smith had some upside. Oh wait, we dumped him too.

I've always liked PJ Brown. He's really, really old now and I don't think you make a ECF / Finals run with him as your starting PF. Perhaps Tyrus (FIRE PAX!!!!) will rise to the occasion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> There's demand for every player, even Howard Eisley.



Yah, like that is the same kind of deal.....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> You have to explain why this is your #1 goal for this team.


I'm still chuckling that he opened his mouth to say what was in the quote box.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If McGraw/Ford is not enough to accept that there was demand for Chandler, then I'm going to have to ask for concrete proof as to what the stipulations are that Uncle Jerry gave Paxson.


There was demand for Chandler. I think we all accept that. We just don't know what the purchase price was. 

As for the second part, are you saying there were not salary stipulations imposed on Paxson? You are the one calling it a salary dump (which it was, I agree).


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, like that is the same kind of deal.....


The point is that saying there is demand for a player and specifying the level of that demand are entirely two different things.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> financial responsibility means you can do something if you have a broken Ben Wallace back,


Chandler.





> You'll cite how great Detroit was, but you'll neglect to mention how they passed up on extending some very good players because they didn't want to get into trouble. were cheap? or did they know they could benefit from waiting til they had a roster they were comforable giving extensions to? fans were mad Okur left. the management knew better than to pay his price.


The Pistons don't have the revenue the Bulls do (at least @ the gate). Detroit is a dying city. It costs 1/3 less for a family of four to go to a Pistons game.

The Bulls are the most profitable team in the NBA.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I don't think you make a ECF / Finals run with him as your starting PF


Lucky for us we still have Allen.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If McGraw/Ford is not enough to accept that there was demand for Chandler, then I'm going to have to ask for concrete proof as to what the stipulations are that Uncle Jerry gave Paxson.


"Ultimately, the decision to go after [Wallace] was Pax’s call and it sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson, *especially knowing there was pretty strong interest around the league.*"

That seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. 

I guess folks are well within their rights to play ATS with McGraw, even if it's a little unseemly in light of his recent Q&A.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> As for the second part, are you saying there were not salary stipulations imposed on Paxson? You are the one calling it a salary dump (which it was, I agree).


Yes, of course there are stipulations.

Now, I know I'm not going to get an itemized list of what those stipulations are.

So, I can accept that based on the limited amount of information available, since that is a reasonable conclusion, or I can be a stickler about it, demand hard, tangible evidence (where is the memo! i don't see a memo! how do i know this memo wasn't forged!) and attack whatever sources are presented.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not a good return on an asset. I like the other alternative better, as well as holding out for a better trade with no real salary penalty this season.


One thing needs to be made clear. It has NEVER, EVER, been reported ANYWHERE that a Murphy/Pietrus trade was on the table after the draft and after Ben Wallace was signed.

Ford mentioned that this was an option that Paxson had, but he did not put into context as to when it was available. All detailed reports regarding that deal involved exchanges of draft picks in one form or another. To say that Murphy/Pietrus was available when Paxson opted to trade Chandler for Brown is pure speculation (notwithstanding the questionable merits of the deal following the draft).

As for just hanging on to Chandler and trading him later, I don't think one can assume that it is so simple to do. He is a highly paid, long term contract, for a limited skill player who is regressing in his skill area. If it continues, he will be extremely difficult to move without taking back other undesirable contracts in return and might actually impede a talent consolidation trade. Chris Mullin and Isiah Thomas could speak to this concept extensively.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> and attack whatever sources are presented.


Another thing should be clarified. No one is attacking McGraw's or Ford's reliability. This is not a game of attack the source.

We are analyzing the specific content and timing of what was reported. There is an enormous difference.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> "Ultimately, the decision to go after [Wallace] was Pax’s call and it sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson, *especially knowing there was pretty strong interest around the league.*"
> 
> That seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.
> 
> I guess folks are well within their rights to play ATS with McGraw, even if it's a little unseemly in light of his recent Q&A.


Its pretty cut and dried in that its indisputably vague. No one is attacking McGraw which, I agree would be unseemly given that he is a clear friend of the site that we all appreciate.

We are looking at the amount of detail to what he wrote and the liberties people take with it. "Pretty strong interest" is a subjective phrase and lacks detail. Indeed it contains no detail whatsoever. 

The Bulls got 2 expiring contracts totally $11 million for Chandler. That can constitute "strong interest" in the modern NBA and we all know it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its pretty cut and dried in that its vague. No one is attacking McGraw which, I agree would be unseemly given that he is a clear friend of the site that we all appreciate.
> 
> We are looking at the amount of detail to what he wrote and the liberties people take with it. "Pretty strong interest" is a subjective phrase and lacks detail. Indeed it contains no detail whatsoever.
> 
> The Bulls got 2 expiring contracts totally $11 million for Chandler. That can constitute "strong interest" in the modern NBA and we all know it.


It was "pretty strong interest *around the league,*" counselor.

I think even the narrowest definition of "around the league" would involve teams, plural, no?

I take "pretty strong interest around the league" to mean offers of good value, offers in good quantities, or possibly a combination of both.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Another thing should be clarified. No one is attacking McGraw's or Ford's reliability. This is not a game of attack the source.
> 
> We are analyzing the specific content and timing of what was reported. There is an enormous difference.



http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=286197&highlight=Troy+Murphy



> Brandon, Bay Area: Are the Warriors moving Troy Murphy? Also, is there much interest for Pietrus?
> 
> Chad Ford: They've talked to a number of teams about moving Murphy and have included Pietrus as a way of sweetening the deal. They had that offer on the table with Chicago for Chandler, but the Bulls decided to go with P. J. Brown because of the cap flexibility it gives them next summer. The Jazz have shown some interest in the past, but the truth is that they're running out of teams that would be willing to absorb that salary.


I don't see a mention of draft picks. Can you provide where you are getting that from?

I also don't see how the PJ Brown deal would be an alternative to the GS deal if draft picks or Wallace had anything to do with it.... unless this was all planned before the draft and wallace signing.

The Jazz? (Boozer?)

Running out of teams? Yah, if Chandler continues to regress, that's the risk. We'll see how it plays out. When surrounded by other strong big men he was one of best 7 footers in the league for the Bulls.

There was interest around the league. Warriors. Jazz. Hornets. Perhaps more. Bulls were suprised by the strong interest around the league (McGraw).


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

It's amazing the degree to which we explicate the language of reporters who are likely hurridly trying to make deadline.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> They've talked to a number of teams about moving Murphy and have included Pietrus as a way of sweetening the deal. They had that offer on the table with Chicago for Chandler, but the Bulls decided to go with P. J. Brown because of the cap flexibility it gives them next summer. The Jazz have shown some interest in the past,* but the truth is that they're running out of teams that would be willing to absorb that salary[b/].*


* 

This quote shows that Chandler's worth wasn't very high. The Bulls would of traded one bloated contract for another. Troy's contract is probably worse since Golden State would throw in Pietrus just to get rid of Troy.*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=286197&highlight=Troy+Murphy
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a mention of draft picks. Can you provide where you are getting that from?



http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281373&page=1&pp=50


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Another has the Warriors sending Pietrus, Murphy and the No. 9 to the Bulls for Tyson Chandler and the No. 16.


Uh, OK.

Make the trade and draft Thabo with the #9.

Why is this even being discussed as an issue?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mike McGraw shed some light on this already:



> Q: As you've alluded to in several pieces, there were multiple variations of deals involving Tyson Chandler "out there." We've heard about the one involving Marion and the one involving Troy Murphy. Were there any others? Were any of these other deals ever close to happening?
> 
> A: It’s always hard to tell how close anything was to happening, since there is so much discussion going on. *I do think if the Bulls did not get Ben Wallace, they would have signed Przybilla and probably traded Tyson for a scorer, such as Carlos Boozer, Al Harrington or maybe Marcus Camby.*




So there are a few names beside's Murphy. Boozer, Harrington, Camby. Each makes some sense (although Camby quite a bit less as a scorer, IMO). From what I read last year, the Hawks were interested in making an offer to Chandler, but he spurned them and wouldn't even go visit them.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It was "pretty strong interest *around the league,*" counselor.
> 
> I think even the narrowest definition of "around the league" would involve teams, plural, no?
> 
> I take "pretty strong interest around the league" to mean offers of good value, offers in good quantities, or possibly a combination of both.


I just want to know what "good value" Paxson passed up, before I criticize him for passing on a supposed deal. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

I certainly can't blame him for not wanting to take on Troy Murphy's bloated, long term deal.

The statement that there was strong interest around the league doesn't really tell us anything to help analyze what Paxson should or shouldn't have done.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'd have prefered he just held on to Tyson if there wasn't a good deal available. I'm quite sure there were some decent deals to be had but when you don't want to take back salary unless it is expiring that sort of limits your options dramatically.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Paxson has avoided the long term deal, except for the one he gave to Chandler and decided he didn't want anymore a few months later.

But for the 4 years on the job, we've paid 10s of millions for 2 years of AD, 1 year for TT to sit at home and then help the Suns get to the conference finals and now 1 year of PJ Brown. Close to 40 million dollars.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Uh, OK.
> 
> Make the trade and draft Thabo with the #9.


I think the general consensus on this board in discussing these Murphy scenarios was that nobody thought he was worth taking on that big contract, that he was a big guy too in love with his jumper and he was a defensive stiff that wouldn't mesh with the team.

Other than that I guess it would have been a great deal...




> Why is this even being discussed as an issue?


You got me, buddy. But apparently we are going to be discussing it every day for the next 12 months.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think the general consensus on this board in discussing these Murphy scenarios was that nobody thought he was worth taking on that big contract, that he was a big guy too in love with his jumper and he was a defensive stiff that wouldn't mesh with the team.
> 
> Other than that I guess it would have been a great deal...


Right, but if everyone knew the alternative was a salary dump, I think there would have been a different reaction.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I just want to know what "good value" Paxson passed up, before I criticize him for passing on a supposed deal. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?


I don't think it's reasonable. It's exceptionally rare to hear a GM acknowledge an actual trade offer he made that was rejected by another GM, or to hear a GM list trades he could have made instead of the one he did. So you're setting an impossibly high bar, imo. I think McGraw's highly, intimately informed speculation is about as close as we'll get to the truth.



> I certainly can't blame him for not wanting to take on Troy Murphy's bloated, long term deal.


 Me neither. But then again, I don't think that it was an absolute, sell-the-farm-at-any-cost necessity to trade Tyson Chandler.



> The statement that there was strong interest around the league doesn't really tell us anything to help analyze what Paxson should or shouldn't have done.


It does a lot to bolster the argument that if he had to make a deal, it's not out-of-this-world unlikely that Pax could have made a better basketball trade than Chandler for PJ Brown. Of course, I'm sure that none of the other deals the Bulls were entertaining would have saved them $45+ million. But that's just a guess.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but if everyone knew the alternative was a salary dump, I think there would have been a different reaction.


 My reaction would be one of wonder, why the hell would the Bulls trade their bad contract for another? If Murphy was the alternative, I would of been pissed we didn't keep chandler.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> My reaction would be one of wonder, why the hell would the Bulls trade their bad contract for another? If Murphy was the alternative, I would of been pissed we didn't keep chandler.



I wonder why the hell we signed Ben Wallace to win now if the starting PF is PJ Brown.

I would have rather kept Chandler as well, to tell you the truth, which was my initial reaction when hearing about the trade. But, since we dumped Chandler for PJ and Smith, and then dumped Smith, well, Murphy/Pietrus sounds a hell of a lot better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder why the hell we traded for Ben Wallace to win now if the starting PF is PJ Brown.
> 
> I would have rather kept Chandler as well, to tell you the truth, which was my initial reaction when hearing about the trade. But, since we dumped Chandler for PJ and Smith, and then dumped Smith, well, Murphy/Pietrus sounds a hell of a lot better.



I agree. I wasn't expecting Wallace & Tyson to see much time together on the front court but could you imagine those two together defending and rebounding in the paint? Throw in Nocioni at the 3 and Ben & Kirk could jack shots all day long, it would be like having one of those nets that bounces the ball back to you after every miss! lol


And for that matter, who is gonna score on BOTH Tyson & Wallace in the post? Outside of Shaq I can't think of anyone...maybe Amare or Howard.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> But for the 4 years on the job, we've paid 10s of millions for 2 years of AD, 1 year for TT to sit at home and then help the Suns get to the conference finals and now 1 year of PJ Brown. Close to 40 million dollars.


yes....which kills your argument that the Bulls dont spend at the level that their gate revenue should dictate.

we do spend. we spend smartly. we take on the expiring contract so we can see where we are in a year. you'd be absolutely right that this is a problem... if we DIDNT have a young, cheap, excellent core.

the guys they like are Noc, Deng, Hinrich, Gordon. These guys will get extensions. 


there is nothing wrong with waiting until you have a group you are comfortable with BEFORE going into the tax. 

we are going into this thing now with 2 years playoff experience for our young guys. Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni all improved aspects of their offense. Gordon improved his defense.



your entire argument relies on the belief that we took a step backward last year. that's where you are wrong, and nobody here agrees with your appraisal of the 06 Finals... that Miami toyed with us. 

Dwyane Wade has said the Bulls gave them the toughest ride of any playoff opponent. I tend to his words over yours.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It was "pretty strong interest *around the league,*" counselor.
> 
> I think even the narrowest definition of "around the league" would involve teams, plural, no?
> 
> I take "pretty strong interest around the league" to mean offers of good value, offers in good quantities, or possibly a combination of both.


But its vague. What is good value? Its subjective. Other deals involving expiring contracts? Thats good value. 

Sure, plural. But again its vague. Quoting it again just reinforces its lack of specificity or any detail whatsoever regarding Chandler's purchase price. 

My point was simply to correct you and K4E. No one is attacking the source. We are discussing the content of what the source reported. Thats it. Frankly, since we all appreciate what Mike McGraw does on this cite, I'd prefer it if you'd not falsely characterize the posts in such a way that makes it seem as though we don't appreciate him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Uh, OK.
> 
> Make the trade and draft Thabo with the #9.
> 
> Why is this even being discussed as an issue?


Because that deal would have been made before the Wallace signing. Chandler became expendable because of who we signed in free agency. Same may have applied if we'd signed Pryz.

If we signed Harrington, on the other hand, I doubt Chandler would have been dealt for Brown/Smith. 

The sequence matters to what transpired.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson has avoided the long term deal, except for the one he gave to Chandler and decided he didn't want anymore a few months later.
> 
> But for the 4 years on the job, we've paid 10s of millions for 2 years of AD, 1 year for TT to sit at home and then help the Suns get to the conference finals and now 1 year of PJ Brown. Close to 40 million dollars.



And, as you blatantly omit, 4 years of Ben Wallce.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But its vague.


Yup. It's vague. But it's not this vague:



Ron Cey said:


> "Pretty strong interest" is a subjective phrase and lacks detail. Indeed it contains no detail whatsoever.
> 
> The Bulls got 2 expiring contracts totally $11 million for Chandler. That can constitute "strong interest" in the modern NBA and we all know it.





> My point was simply to correct you and K4E.


Nothing I said with respect to McGraw's quotes needed correcting. What you said with respect to McGraw's quotes did, however -- you omitted a vital qualifer ("around the league").



> Frankly, since we all appreciate what Mike McGraw does on this cite, I'd prefer it if you'd not falsely characterize the posts in such a way that makes it seem as though we don't appreciate him.


I don't think there's any need for this kind of melodrama.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kind of pointless what the exact deals were that Paxson turned down.


we know enough already. Paxson wanted to dump Tyson's salary, instead of taking on big contracts of solid or somewhat solid guys. 

could he have turned Chandler et al. into Garnett, i'm sure he would have. but barring something like that, his preferred move was to lose that salary. and thats what we've been debating. but knowing more wouldnt change the debate too much, in my view.



also, no one's really talking about what roles Pietrus and Murphy would have had on this team. for that kind of an expenditure, they'd best be a good fit. you dont just get them just for the sake of getting em. lets not pretend we were capable of trading Tyson for two worldbeaters. we have guys who will do what the GS twosome wouldve done.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't think it's reasonable. It's exceptionally rare to hear a GM acknowledge an actual trade offer he made that was rejected by another GM, or to hear a GM list trades he could have made instead of the one he did. So you're setting an impossibly high bar, imo. I think McGraw's highly, intimately informed speculation is about as close as we'll get to the truth.


I'm not setting a bar at all. My point is that McGraw's comments that there was interest in Chandler isn't enough to indict Paxson. It goes back to my earlier comments, in which I countered criticism of "blind faith" in Paxson by pointing out that "blind hate" or "blind distrust" in Paxson is equally disingenuous. 



> Me neither. But then again, I don't think that it was an absolute, sell-the-farm-at-any-cost necessity to trade Tyson Chandler.


Of course there wasn't. If Tyson was still here, there'd be no real complaint from me, as long as he came ready to play. I just don't see the major crisis in moving him, when Brwon, Wallace and Thomas more than cover the skill set we give up without Chandler -- blocks and rebounds.[/quote]





> It does a lot to bolster the argument that if he had to make a deal, it's not out-of-this-world unlikely that Pax could have made a better basketball trade than Chandler for PJ Brown. Of course, I'm sure that none of the other deals the Bulls were entertaining would have saved them $45+ million. But that's just a guess.


We can speculate if there was a deal out there that would have genuinely improved the team. As you say yourself, we'll probably never know.

I am not, on the other hand, so quick to turn my nose up at the significance of Tyson's (now Brown's)salary coming off the books next year. It sure makes re-signing the core much more likely than if we were paying Walace AND Chandler (or Murphy).

I believe that management will pay for a winner, as they previously have stated. But it is pretty clear that they won't throw a ton of cash at a potential winner and hope it pays off later. They won't build a team like the Knicks. Or the Mavs, for that matter. You want to criticize that, well, far game. 

But knowing that it is what it is, I have fewer pains in my stomach about the long term future of the team they've put together with Tyson's salary gone after next season.

That alone is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

also enough of calling JR Smith a salary dump, when they just flat out wanted Adrian Griffin more. Grif filled needs, JR created question marks. JR needs to play a lot right now, and he wouldnt get those minutes here. not even close.



someone else said it, but the JR Smith move was a basketball move, not a salary dump. he wouldve had no role here. just like murphy/pietrus.


we get so sold on potential that we want every prospect on earth. but Tyrus, Sefolosha and next year's #1 are enough. They're cheap for awhile, and they can be ready to take over for guys who will be done in a few years. 

If youre a playoff team, you dont collect guys like that at high salaries. you just draft.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I don't think there's any need for this kind of melodrama.


You are the one calling posters out for "ATS" against McGraw and calling the practice "unseemly" given his contributions. Had you not asserted it, I would not have corrected it.

Please spare me the hypocrisy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The sequence matters to what transpired.


Right, but according to Ford, the PJ trade was an alternative to the GS trade. The Bulls decided to go with PJ for the salary relief.

And we'd only do the PJ trade after the Wallace signing (one would hope!)

And... if GS would do Murphy/Pietrus + #9 for Chandler + #16.... they would almost certainly want to do the trade without the picks involved... since they were giving up the better pick!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

So nobody's interested in the fact that McGraw suggested a sign-and-trade of Chandler for Al Harrington or Carlos Boozer was a possibility?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

While everyone is crying "ATTACK THE SOURCE" and overanalyzing parts of McGraw's sentences, why are we not paying attention to the main point of the sentence? *"It sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson"* makes it pretty clear that the organization didn't feel like he was living up to the contract he was tendered. If he were, approaching Wallace wouldn't have even been in question. I buy a $60 million car that turns out to be a lemon, and someone else offers me to trade where they assume payments on my lemon and I assume payments on the remaining $10 of their lemon, I trade lemons! Especially given that I just bought myself a bright shiny NEW (to me!) $60 million car to replace the lemon....

*The Bull was ready to cut ties with Tyson.*

After last season, so were many of the Bull fans.

The Bull was able to find a replacement for Tyson in Ben.

The Bull was able to find another franchise willing to assume payments on what they deemed a bad investment, saving themselves, what? $45 million? What idiots!

But we choose instead to focus on the little qualifier *"especially"*.

Hey! I felt fine about breaking up with my 350 lb girlfriend (who smells like rotten fish, cheats on me nightly, and costs me thousands in food and clothing), especially because she snores when I'm trying to sleep!

*THE BULL WAS READY TO CUT TIES WITH TYSON!*

Once you've decided the guy is not a part of your future, what is wrong with finding a way to mitigate the amount you'll need to pay him over the next several years?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> *THE BULL WAS READY TO CUT TIES WITH TYSON!*


That's clear.

The argument is whether they would have been better served exploring the Murphy/Pietrus deal, trying to get Boozer, trying to get Harrington, or holding on and trying for a better trade or a consolidation trade.

I mean, my goodness, now there is talk that PJ isn't going to pass his physical?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Wynn said:


> While everyone is crying "ATTACK THE SOURCE" and overanalyzing parts of McGraw's sentences, why are we not paying attention to the main point of the sentence? *"It sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson"* makes it pretty clear that the organization didn't feel like he was living up to the contract he was tendered. If he were, approaching Wallace wouldn't have even been in question. I buy a $60 million car that turns out to be a lemon, and someone else offers me to trade where they assume payments on my lemon and I assume payments on the remaining $10 of their lemon, I trade lemons! Especially given that I just bought myself a bright shiny NEW (to me!) $60 million car to replace the lemon....
> 
> *The Bull was ready to cut ties with Tyson.*
> 
> ...


Nice post. It is interesting that the debate is centering around what is not the main point McGraw was trying to convey, which was that the team was not interested in retaining Tyson's services after they had acquired Wallace.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Once you've decided the guy is not a part of your future, what is wrong with finding a way to mitigate the amount you'll need to pay him over the next several years?


Nothing. But if you've got a choice of ways to do that, and one choice is to put PJ Brown next to Ben Wallace and contend for the conference finals, and the other choice is to put Al Harrington or Marcus Camby or Carlos Boozer next to Ben Wallace and contend for the NBA finals, then my opinion would be that you attempt to make the move that gets you to the NBA finals.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Nice post. It is interesting that the debate is centering around what is not the main point McGraw was trying to convey, which was that the team was not interested in retaining Tyson's services after they had acquired Wallace.


Actually, McGraw's point was that they were not interested in keeping Tyson whether or not they got Wallace.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> So nobody's interested in the fact that McGraw suggested a sign-and-trade of Chandler for Al Harrington or Carlos Boozer was a possibility?


I'd be interested to hear what the Harrington deal would've been. I wonder if the fact that Atlanta can't really make any deals until their ownership situation is resolved killed that...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> So nobody's interested in the fact that McGraw suggested a sign-and-trade of Chandler for Al Harrington or Carlos Boozer was a possibility?


Apparently not! 

If Pax felt that P.J. Brown and J.R. Smith were the best basketball players he could get for Tyson Chandler, even in the face of strong interest from around the league, then by God that is that.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Actually, McGraw's point was that they were not interested in keeping Tyson whether or not they got Wallace.


Yup. From McGraw's Q&A...



> _everyone_ was ready to cut ties with Tyson


Pax was not alone in this decision, if you believe in this quote from McGraw. I bet the coaching staff didn't put up much of a fight on Tyson's behalf. He was gone no matter who we drafted & signed in free agency.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Apparently not!
> 
> If Pax felt that P.J. Brown and J.R. Smith were the best basketball players he could get for Tyson Chandler, even in the face of strong interest from around the league, then by God that is that.



But clearly you realize this isn't the case. I'd be the first to admit this move was made for salary cap reasons, not to obtain the best players he could get for Tyson. Is anyone truly arguing otherwise? 

Now, we can argue whether it's right or wrong that Pax moved Tyson for financial reasons, but I'd be surprised if anyone would argue the move was about getting the best player(s) possible.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> So nobody's interested in the fact that McGraw suggested a sign-and-trade of Chandler for Al Harrington or Carlos Boozer was a possibility?


To me I don't see how it ever was, we had the opportunity to add Boozer and we passed, and all that was required back then was Tim Thomas and Sweets. We did have an interest in Harrington a while ago aswell, but that dissipated with Nocioni's performance in the playoffs and the fact that we have plenty of capable players to play his true position. Not to mention that it was publically stated that Atlanta is unable to take on contracts or sign anyone to one that is longer than 1 year, with the exceptions to rookies and Speedy Claxton.


> the other choice is to put Al Harrington or Marcus Camby or Carlos Boozer next to Ben Wallace and contend for the NBA finals


The Camby rumour is the most interesting one, how does Denver go from shopping K-Mart to shopping their best big? Plus why take on another huge contract in return, it serves no purpose.


> then my opinion would be that you attempt to make the move that gets you to the NBA finals.


Which to me is obvious that if any of these moves were truly feasible that Paxson would of pulled the trigger, but when you look at it in a case by case basis, none ever were.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Actually, McGraw's point was that they were not interested in keeping Tyson whether or not they got Wallace.



That's not exactly how I read it. I read that there was a desire to move Tyson if possible, but that if they hadn't signed Wallace, he would have been swapped likely for more talented players with bigger deals rather than in a salary cap flexibility move. I don't think he was meaning that the Tyson/PJ trade would have happened if Wallace hadn't been signed. You and I may be on the same page here though. I can't quite tell.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is no reason that the Bulls, the most profitable team in the league, should not be in the top 1/4 of the leauge when it comes to payroll.


I haven't studied the figures historically but I think your comment is relatively fair.

However, if we choose to re-sign our guys and they don't pan out into a Finals-destined team, what then? At some point you have to take salary dumps or else you find yourself in Mark Cuban or Isaiah Thomas land. Would your preference be shelling out the money now and having to make _three_ salary dump trades (hypothetical number) to free up the money to sign _one_ FA.

OR

While we are waiting to see what this group develops, make one salary dump move to maintain some more flexibility about what you can do in the future.

----------

And in case you didn't remember, I wasn't in favor of trading Chandler this offseason unless Paxson really believes that we are title contenders this year (I don't).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Wynn said:


> While everyone is crying "ATTACK THE SOURCE" and overanalyzing parts of McGraw's sentences, why are we not paying attention to the main point of the sentence? *"It sounds like everyone was ready to cut ties with Tyson"* makes it pretty clear that the organization didn't feel like he was living up to the contract he was tendered. If he were, approaching Wallace wouldn't have even been in question. I buy a $60 million car that turns out to be a lemon, and someone else offers me to trade where they assume payments on my lemon and I assume payments on the remaining $10 of their lemon, I trade lemons! Especially given that I just bought myself a bright shiny NEW (to me!) $60 million car to replace the lemon....
> 
> *The Bull was ready to cut ties with Tyson.*
> 
> ...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> ...and the other choice is to put Al Harrington or Marcus Camby or Carlos Boozer next to Ben Wallace and contend for the NBA finals...


Exqueeze me? Baking powder?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> So nobody's interested in the fact that McGraw suggested a sign-and-trade of Chandler for Al Harrington or Carlos Boozer was a possibility?


Not really. I'd rather have the salary relief, which increases the chances that all our core players get re-signed to deals they all can be happy with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's not exactly how I read it. I read that there was a desire to move Tyson if possible, but that if they hadn't signed Wallace, he would have been swapped likely for more talented players with bigger deals rather than in a salary cap flexibility move. I don't think he was meaning that the Tyson/PJ trade would have happened if Wallace hadn't been signed. You and I may be on the same page here though. I can't quite tell.


I think we agree. I was pointing out that the Bulls appeared to desire to move Tyson irrespective of signing Wallace.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> But clearly you realize this isn't the case. I'd be the first to admit this move was made for salary cap reasons, not to obtain the best players he could get for Tyson. Is anyone truly arguing otherwise?


I believe that's the jist... whether stated or not... of much of the last couple of days posting.



> Now, we can argue whether it's right or wrong that Pax moved Tyson for financial reasons, but I'd be surprised if anyone would argue the move was about getting the best player(s) possible.


I don't think it's solely about one thing or the other. However, I think legitimate shots to win an NBA championship don't come along very often. By getting Wallace, we appear to be one move away....



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not really. I'd rather have the salary relief, which increases the chances that all our core players get re-signed to deals they all can be happy with.


If that's the case, then why sign Wallace in the first place? Signing Wallace is a "win now" move You don't put yourself in position to make a title run and then worry about having to resign guys in two or three years. In two or three years, you can still likely trade a Boozer/Harrington/Camby type in a salary dump, if you really need to.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Hornetsreport.com insiders

Remember them? They made several bold predictions about what the Hornets were going to do in the draft, free agency, and in trades... and they nailed every single one of them. 

They said P.J. Brown for Chandler was agreed to prior to the draft. Minor details such as Malik Allen, J.R. Smith etc. could still change, but the basics of the deal always centered around Brown & Chandler. 

IMO, the drafting of Tyrus Thomas made Chandler expendable. Bulls knew they were going to add Tyrus, and agreed to swap Chandler for Brown BEFORE they even knew Ben Wallace was coming. Paxson said himself he didn't really think Ben would leave Detroit. 

Tyson was going to New Orleans with or without the Wallace signing. The Hornets insiders and now Mike McGraw reported this.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I think we agree. I was pointing out that the Bulls appeared to desire to move Tyson irrespective of signing Wallace.



Yep, I'm with you there. It seems, for better or for worse, they had given up on the kid. The only question that remained was what to move him for.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Nothing. But if you've got a choice of ways to do that, and one choice is to put PJ Brown next to Ben Wallace and contend for the conference finals, and the other choice is to put Al Harrington or Marcus Camby or Carlos Boozer next to Ben Wallace and contend for the NBA finals, then my opinion would be that you attempt to make the move that gets you to the NBA finals.


This, however, is pure speculation. I've certainly made it clear in the past that I'd like to see Harrington on this roster. We don't know if Pax explored these possibilities and was rejected. McGraw only says *"A: It’s always hard to tell how close anything was to happening, since there is so much discussion going on. I do think if the Bulls did not get Ben Wallace, they would have signed Przybilla and probably traded Tyson for a scorer, such as Carlos Boozer, Al Harrington or maybe Marcus Camby."* Pax may very well have explored these opportunities but been rebuffed. There's also the possibility that he (and Uncle Jerry) would rather lose the salary to avoid the tax penalty when re-signing our other young players.

Seems like whenever I forwarded the idea of adding Harrington to the roster, others claimed that he was redundant with Andres and Luol. Maybe Pax felt that with Andres, Luol, Tyrus, and Viktor all under contract that Al would be a redundancy.

Whatever the answer, we're unlikely to know it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yep, I'm with you there. It seems, for better or for worse, they had given up on the kid. The only question that remained was what to move him for.


I'd bet having the Knicks pick and knowing that they could nab Tyrus was really what made them decide that thats what they wanted to do.

Without that pick, I don't think they would have 'given up'.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Just wanted to point out another beat writers view: Brian Hanley on the score mentioned the day after the trade that one reason it took so long to finish was that Pax and others weren't 100 percent sure about the trade. He said certain people on the Bulls staff think one of these days Chandler will put it all together, and they may regret the trade. But in the end, they did it anyway.

Chandler puts so much pressure on himself that I'm not sure that light would go on here - the trade to New Orleans may be the best thing for him in the long run. We can argue about it three years from now with a lot more hindsight.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

GB said:


> I'd bet having the Knicks pick and knowing that they could nab Tyrus was really what made them decide that thats what they wanted to do.
> 
> Without that pick, I don't think they would have 'given up'.



I agree with that as well. I was having a phone conversation last night with one of my friends, who is a frequent lurker and occasional poster here. He was saying that he felt both the Wallace and Tyrus moves were what created the environment where Tyson could be shipped out. Tyrus now can develop at a slower pace if it proves to be necessary. Adding Big Ben gives him the time to do that. As Ben gets older and Tyrus improves, they can transition to Tyrus as the PF of the future of this team.

Either way, a legit center would be a welcome addition to the roster. I do think Ben can play that position just fine for the moment, but another young big with a more polished inside game will likely need to be drafted next year.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wynn said:


> This, however, is pure speculation. I've certainly made it clear in the past that I'd like to see Harrington on this roster. We don't know if Pax explored these possibilities and was rejected. McGraw only says *"A: It’s always hard to tell how close anything was to happening, since there is so much discussion going on. I do think if the Bulls did not get Ben Wallace, they would have signed Przybilla and probably traded Tyson for a scorer, such as Carlos Boozer, Al Harrington or maybe Marcus Camby."* Pax may very well have explored these opportunities but been rebuffed. There's also the possibility that he (and Uncle Jerry) would rather lose the salary to avoid the tax penalty when re-signing our other young players.


Yup. Obviously there's a possibility he didn't have the choice. That possibility, itself, is pure speculation, which is I why I seldom think it's useful to start a post saying someone's obvious speculation is speculative. Especially when I follow it up with my own speculation. 



> Seems like whenever I forwarded the idea of adding Harrington to the roster, others claimed that he was redundant with Andres and Luol. Maybe Pax felt that with Andres, Luol, Tyrus, and Viktor all under contract that Al would be a redundancy.
> 
> Whatever the answer, we're unlikely to know it.


Perhaps. My perspective on Harrington is that he became much more attractive the moment we had Wallace, by virtue of being better than the guys we already had. Sort of like Ben is a better version of Tyson, Harrington is a better version of what we've got. Once we got Ben, we opened an immediate opportunity to get very deep in the playoffs, so a relative upgrade became quite a bit more attractive.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Harrington's really isnt a post game. the majority of his points are scored facing the basket. not to say he couldn't change, but it would be surprising.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Yup. Obviously there's a possibility he didn't have the choice. That possibility, itself, is pure speculation, which is I why I seldom think it's useful to start a post saying someone's obvious speculation is speculative. Especially when I follow it up with my own speculation.


hehehe.....

...touche'



On this board, though, today's speculation becomes tomorrow's "It's a shame Pax didn't do the Harrington trade that was on the table". Just labling for those of us on the board who are little slower on the uptake. Gotta take care of my people.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wynn said:


> hehehe.....
> 
> ...touche'
> 
> ...


True enough, I'm sure it will. It'll also become "There were no other deals available and we had to move!" in time too.

For me, I've read enough "chilling reminders" and charges of "agenda-driven hater crappola" from all sides here in the last couple of days. I'd dearly love to see some toning down of the political diatribe style rhetoric and some recognition that everyone here is a fan and entitled to some modicrum of respect and courtesy.

All of those petty insults do nothing but irritate people. Well, there are a couple people who get off on watching people slug it out, but mostly it makes people without a dog in the fight just shake their head. And it just gives the people with a dog in the fight the opportunity to make a mental note of one more grievance and thus, one more justification to get in a dig of their own down the road.

I'm sick of that crap. I don't want everyone to agree, and I don't expect everyone to like each other or be happy all the time, but yeesh, as a site we can do better. At the very least a bit more witty, but above all, try to be more interesting.


----------

