# Dour mood on the club



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I get the sense, from everyone outside of Kismet (mate, your guilty of being too optimistic  ), that Pax or the Bulls wont be that good this year. Im a little surprised. Sure the Crawford fiasco was a setback, no one can deny that. But Pax has set this club up pretty well for the future this summer. If Nocioni signs (is it tomorrow yet? Im not convinced but we will see) he provides depth at the 3 (anyone who thinks he can play the 2 has never seen him play). DMD has rightly pointed out that Deng looks special and he will be the starting 3, and probably the Bulls best player very quickly. Gordon should score, Curry will do whatever he does, which is score, and not rebound and Chandler should be greatly improved. In fact I think this might be Chandlers year. Kirk will take up jamals spot for bricks and the bench will be ok to good. Is it good enough to get to the playoffs? Probably not. But a 35% improvement in wins is doable, plus the Bulls have better financial flexibility and have seemed to change the league wide percepton of themselves in terms of FAs. 3 good young players (Deng, Gordon, Nocioni) plus 2 possible nice young players (Frank and Duhon) with tradable assets (Harrington, Mutombo) means the club is headed in the right direction. One more year is what I say. Paxs job, recoup the number one pick for next year (next years class looks amazing) and add a big guard to the club. But its headed in the right direction. Now let the pieces grow up and mature.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

If Nocioni signs (is it tomorrow yet? Im not convinced but we will see) he provides depth at the 3 (anyone who thinks he can play the 2 has never seen him play).

Thank you! I argue with people constantly trying to explain to them that Nocioni is NOT an option at the 2 and is more of a 3/4 than anything else (more 3 of course). It's nice to see someone else realizes this!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Exactly Ace. I read about 15 posts insinuating that Andres could be the 2 in a pinch for us. Well those people have cleary never seen him play. He is basically a 3/4. In the NBA he is a 3, due to size. But his game is in the paint and around the elbows. More 4 then 3. He is about as much of a 2 as Tyson Chandler is a 1. lets put that perception to rest


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Exactly Ace. I read about 15 posts insinuating that Andres could be the 2 in a pinch for us. Well those people have cleary never seen him play. He is basically a 3/4. In the NBA he is a 3, due to size. But his game is in the paint and around the elbows. More 4 then 3. He is about as much of a 2 as Tyson Chandler is a 1. lets put that perception to rest


I agree completely. Now maybe since it is a duet instead of a solo act some folks will believe me. And no, we can't rely on Nocioni to GUARD opposing 2's either.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

If Nocioni becomes a Bull, which isnt certain at all yet, he will exclusively play the 3 and might slide down to the 4 on occasions in small lineups. He will get zero minutes this season at the 2. If he does, that means the Bulls are in big trouble. He is a good player. But he isnt good enough to transcend a position. Anyone who thinks he would have any shot at the 2 in the NBA is really uneducated on his game. 2 seasons ago, he was a PF in Europe and played a ton of 4 last year.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> If Nocioni becomes a Bull, which isnt certain at all yet, he will exclusively play the 3 and might slide down to the 4 on occasions in small lineups. He will get zero minutes this season at the 2. If he does, that means the Bulls are in big trouble. He is a good player. But he isnt good enough to transcend a position. Anyone who thinks he would have any shot at the 2 in the NBA is really uneducated on his game. 2 seasons ago, he was a PF in Europe and played a ton of 4 last year.


I think alot of posters just want to believe he can play the 2, because we need to fill a spot there. 

I've never seen the guy play, but your two guy's opinions are as good as any, so I'm not counting on him playing any SG. 

Do you think he'd be able to play the 4 effectively in short bursts in the NBA? I don't know much about Tau Ceremica or their league even, is the interior play similar to the NBA, or is it like college where you can have a 6'8 center and get by.

And also, what do you realistically expect out of Nocioni on the Bulls? It sounds like he was a stud over there, do you think that translates to a solid 6th man / starter, or just a routine bench player?

Thanks for the dose of optimism, its been pretty scarce lately.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> I think alot of posters just want to believe he can play the 2, because we need to fill a spot there.
> ...


I think Nocionis success will be coming off the bench in the pros. he isnt considered as good a player as Ginobili and I would agree with that. Ginobili is good, though I think he is fairly overrated by most everyone. Nocioni will play more in his game then Manu, who tends to force things. But he is still a bit of a tweener. The good news is that he is super athletic and has been able to push his J out to 20 feet. though an NBA 3 from outfront is not going to be in his range. For short bursts in a small lineup, he could be very effective playing the 4. He is no smaller then Rodman, who is a Hall of Fame 4. 

I spoke to an NBA employee last week while looking at Martynas Andrievekicius (however you spell his name). He came up with the best Deng comparison I have heard. Antoine Walker minus the undiscipline. I cant think of a better comparison. And thats pretty good. Remember, Walkers 3 pt forces has kept him from true greatness. That doesnt appear to be a problem for Deng. I expect Deng to be the pillar this franchise is built around. That or whoever the Bulls get in next years draft ( I pray for Nemanja or Petro, Marvin Williams maybe)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> I think alot of posters just want to believe he can play the 2, because we need to fill a spot there.
> ...


The Tau Ceramica team and many other euro teams have some pretty good sized centers, most of them don't quite play the same physical game that is played here in the US but there are definitley a few bangers as well. Nocioni could probably play the 4 in a small lineup but I wouldn't count on him to do it very often or reccomend it.

The good thing about Nocioni is he has no problem at all attacking the basket WITHOUT fear. He isn't a great finisher however he does get to the line quite a bit by throwing himself in amongst the bigs. He has a nice atheletic body They say he shoots the euro three pretty well (it's 3feet closer than in the NBA) but from what I have seen he isn't a very consistent shooter from deep range and will probably strugggle with the longer NBA three. His defense is solid but not spectacular, he plays a real physical sort of defense but doesn't have great lateral quickness. He seems to have a pretty good bball iq.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Oh, we'll definitely have a better record than last year, barring major injuries, don't get me wrong. For one, Deng, Gordon, and Noicini all fill holes we had on our team last year. Even if Curry is no better, he's no worse, and Chandler has nowhere to go but up.

That alone probably gets us to 30 wins. The only major non-injury based factor I see there is whether Gordon and Hinrich completely flop as a backcourt. I could see that happening, although I don't think it will.

The causes for pessimism is not so much that we won't improve a bit, but that 

* we won't improve as much as we should have, if we'd held on to a nice player like Jamal

* that we've yet again locked ourselves into a grandiose scheme of getting cap room in two years and tanking until then.

* and that, above all, we're continuing to commit ourselves to two kids who have huge question marks surrounding them.

* Our organization seems willing to publicly diss guys, but gets mad if even a hint of unhappiness is heard to eminate from a player back to them.

* We still seem to have a fetish for over the hill players

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

It's kind of like when we traded Elton and then traded away Miller and Artest. In both cases the Bulls' record marginally improved after the trade, compared to what it was before the trade, but it's also not hard to look and see that it would have been higher still (and better in the long run) if we'd kept those guys around.

Looking at the whole situation, it sometimes seems as if the Bulls have just taken their 1999-2000 gameplan out of a file cabinet and decided to re-run it for 2004-2006. My sense is that they've put slightly better role players around this year's version of Brand, Artest, Kukoc, and Crawford, but in general it's not something I'm particularly enthusiastic about, especially when I saw other alternatives.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Nocionis success will be coming off the bench in the pros. he isnt considered as good a player as Ginobili and I would agree with that. Ginobili is good, though I think he is fairly overrated by most everyone. Nocioni will play more in his game then Manu, who tends to force things. But he is still a bit of a tweener. The good news is that he is super athletic and has been able to push his J out to 20 feet. though an NBA 3 from outfront is not going to be in his range. For short bursts in a small lineup, he could be very effective playing the 4. He is no smaller then Rodman, who is a Hall of Fame 4.
> ...


That IS a good comparison for Deng and one I never thought of.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I don't know if I'd use the term dour, but I suppose its as good as any. I'd say most folks are just more realistic this year. We came off the 02-03 season with that decent stretch run and most everyone figured they'd take off from there to start the 03-04 season. I was one of them. It didn't happen and that train wreck of a season has still left a bad taste in most of our mouths'.

This year, I think this is a better ballclub than what we had last year. Even with the loss of Crawford I think this team will win more than 23 games. (They damn well better!) Gordon will be good. Defensive questions aside, this guy will be able to get wherever he wants on the court. The question will be how long does it take for him to adjust to how the game is played at the professional level. Deng will be just plain solid. He's young but I think he'll at least contribute at the SF spot which was more than what we had last season. Curry is Curry. He'll score and hopefully he's improved his defense and rebounding. Hopefully Chandler remains healthy for the season. Nocioni will probably end up being a fan favorite (if tomorrow ever comes). His hustle and tough play will make us quickly forget JYD. Also, I like the additions of Harrington over Austin and Frank Williams. Those two guys will contribute.

There are still just too many "ifs" and "hopefullys" surrounding this team. If every "if" comes true, this will be an entertaining team to watch and a possible playoff contender. If half of the "ifs" come to pass, this should be a better team than last year but still not playoff-worthy. If none of the "ifs" occur - well, let's not dwell on that.

I think this team is pointed in the right general direction. I just don't like the fact that it's taken the better part of six years to do it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

funny rlucas, I was trying AGAIN for the umpteenth time to try to explain to someone that Nocioni will not play the 2, I refered him to this thread and he responded by refering me to this:

http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/andresnocioni.htm


Somebody over at NBAdraftnet needs to watch some Nocioni games


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> funny rlucas, I was trying AGAIN for the umpteenth time to try to explain to someone that Nocioni will not play the 2, I refered him to this thread and he responded by refering me to this:
> 
> http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/andresnocioni.htm
> ...


NBAdraft.net is a nice reference sight. But lets remember that these are the same guys who said Dwight Stevenson was the next Jordan and that they, in trying to call a kid a bust, called Pietrus the next Fred Jones minus the athletic ability. Turns out both Fred Jones and Mickael Pietrus are pretty good players, so they got both of those wrong. They also said Stoudamire was a major reach when Phoenix took him at 9 and gave them an F for that. I have seen Nocioni 10+ times live. Never once has he played the 2, not for one second. How anyone thinks he can play the 2 in the NBA is beyond me


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

I think we're a better team than we were last season. 

And btw? The Jamal trade was NOT a "fiasco". It was a fantastic move by John. Non-hacking wimps will be weeded off this team. And Curry will find this out real soon if he can't become a man and work for a damn living.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> I think we're a better team than we were last season.
> 
> And btw? The Jamal trade was NOT a "fiasco". It was a fantastic move by John. Non-hacking wimps will be weeded off this team. And Curry will find this out real soon if he can't become a man and work for a damn living.



You think it wasnt a fiasco? Trading Jamal for 4 guys who wont be on the roster in a years time? Thats fair value? We know you dont like Jamal, but dont be dumb about it


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> NBAdraft.net is a nice reference sight. But lets remember that these are the same guys who said Dwight Stevenson was the next Jordan and that they, in trying to call a kid a bust, called Pietrus the next Fred Jones minus the athletic ability. Turns out both Fred Jones and Mickael Pietrus are pretty good players, so they got both of those wrong. They also said Stoudamire was a major reach when Phoenix took him at 9 and gave them an F for that. I have seen Nocioni 10+ times live. Never once has he played the 2, not for one second. How anyone thinks he can play the 2 in the NBA is beyond me


I agree, I have only seen Nocioni 5 times now but he doesn't even LOOK like he can play the 2. I knew he had played the 4 before. He won't be playing the 2. I like looking at NBAdraftnet just to see whats out there I haven't seen but I don't always agree with their evaluations, sometimes they are good, sometimes bad.

BTW, did you hear that Kareem Reid, aka "the best kept secret" is getting a tryout on the LA Clippers?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

rlucas is back. I am very pleased!! :grinning: 

Now I'm going to look up what the word 'dour' means. Maybe you meant sour but oh well....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> You think it wasnt a fiasco? Trading Jamal for 4 guys who wont be on the roster in a years time? Thats fair value? We know you dont like Jamal, but dont be dumb about it


Hates Jamal would be more accurate.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, I have only seen Nocioni 5 times now but he doesn't even LOOK like he can play the 2. I knew he had played the 4 before. He won't be playing the 2. I like looking at NBAdraftnet just to see whats out there I haven't seen but I don't always agree with their evaluations, sometimes they are good, sometimes bad.
> ...


I actually heard that. But cant claim to know much about him. There was some guys on the Turkish national team that really drew some interest from NBA types. My guess is that the NBA will scout Europe far harder looking for FAs going forward.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> You think it wasnt a fiasco? Trading Jamal for 4 guys who wont be on the roster in a years time? Thats fair value? We know you dont like Jamal, but dont be dumb about it


Being "dumb" would be paying Jamal what Thomas is paying him. And dont give me any crap about Jamal taking a deal for just a bit more than what we offered him.

That wasn't going to happen.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I just want to know what's up with the "is it tomorrow?" schtick.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Hates Jamal would be more accurate.


Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is intelligent debate and then there is realgm.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Being "dumb" would be paying Jamal what Thomas is paying him. And dont give me any crap about Jamal taking a deal for just a bit more than what we offered him.
> ...


Ok. Your right, your always right.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is intelligent debate and then there is realgm.


Yeah, ok. 

Just to let you know, about 75% of the posters that post HERE, also post at RealGM.

Probably not a good idea to insult them.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok. Your right, your always right.


If Paxson didn't trade Jamal, Goodwin would have him "holding out" of training camp. Guaranteed.

That's a Goodwin tradition.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, ok.
> ...


There are intelligent posters who share your opinion who actually can look at both sides of the coin and speak intelligently about topics. And then there is you. Does that single you more? Does that satisfy you?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There are intelligent posters who share your opinion who actually can look at both sides of the coin and speak intelligently about topics. And then there is you. Does that single you more? Does that satisfy you?


Roflmao!

Your amazing. You actually think your opinion is the be all and end all of this board?

Get real. 

Do you honestly think Jamal Crawford was worth what he is getting paid? I dont. Exactly how am I not speaking about the deal "intelligently"?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Come on you two... yeash. No one else cares, so take it to PM if you want to insult each other. :sigh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Roflmao!
> ...


If Pax got Jamal for 2 mil a year, you would say he over paid. There is intelligence and talking intelligently, and then there is utter one sided crap that you spew on a daily basis. Thank goodness that spew is on Realgm most of the time, not here. No one said my opinion is the end all. I discuss issues everyday with posters who share your opinion. And they are able to have an even keel approach. You clearly cant. Your hate for jamal, and the fact that Pax can do no wrong in your eyes, will not let you speak intelligently on this subject. But what else do I expect?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> If Pax got Jamal for 2 mil a year, you would say he over paid. There is intelligence and talking intelligently, and then there is utter one sided crap that you spew on a daily basis. Thank goodness that spew is on Realgm most of the time, not here. No one said my opinion is the end all. I discuss issues everyday with posters who share your opinion. And they are able to have an even keel approach. You clearly cant. Your hate for jamal, and the fact that Pax can do no wrong in your eyes, will not let you speak intelligently on this subject. But what else do I expect?


This is where you are wrong. I would have gladly have kept Jamal for a little over what we were offering him. Or "Q" money so to speak. But I don't think Goodwin was going to allow that. I honestly dont. This man is having a David Falk sized power trip right now, and he would have held us hostage with Jamal.

Why not give Paxson a chance to work with these expiring contracts? Let's see what he can do. You have to admit, he stuck to his guns with Thomas, and Bird before him. Pax got what he wanted. Good move.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I actually heard that. But cant claim to know much about him. There was some guys on the Turkish national team that really drew some interest from NBA types. My guess is that the NBA will scout Europe far harder looking for FAs going forward.


Reid actually looks really good, of course it's in the streetball environment that he looks so good so I don't know how it will translate but he has a wide array of skills. Normally when I watch streetball I don't even consider the possibility of NBA for those guys but I saw Reid and the thought did tickle the back of my head.

that guy on Turkey is #10, I can't remember his name but I remember his game, he is READY for the NBA.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

I think a little pessimism will be healthy for this club.

The fans, media, and organization in Chicago always set these high expectations every pre-season. Once the @#[email protected] hits the fan, the axe falls somewhere and players, coaches, and management take some undue blame because people's expectations were so unrealistically high. Hasty decisions are made, resulting in bad trades, firings of coaches, and low morale.

Rather than having grand expectations, and then overreacting and getting upset when they don't pan out, it's better to have realistic expectations and be _pleasantly_ surprised when good stuff happens.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)




----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Well, I was worried that the Nocioni signing would fall through. One less concern.

I am still pessimistic b/c the Bulls have not had any (long-term) luck since MJ laced them up.

But if my man Chandler is 100% healthy this year, I think we are going to be knocking on the playoff doors.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I wish I could enjoy some of the pessimism many of you are reveling in, but I'm finding it very difficult to do so. Maybe I'm just addicted to the K-Aid? 

Before this summer, I was on record that losing Jamal for nothing was not something we could afford. I was assured by many that an S&T for an RFA was impossible, and that we would either sign Jamal or lose him for nothing. Given that scenario, it's a no-brainer to sign him. What the Bull did instead, was parlay Jamal into cap flexibility. The Bull also sent a message that playing for stats is not acceptable, and that defense and playing within the team is.

I know this is not a popular opinion, and that many would rather focus on the points (17.3 per game) that we lost. I look at it as losing a guy who would rather dominate the ball than follow his coach's gameplan. Why all the mystery benchings? Beacuase Jamal was smarter than the coach. Do I need to pull up all of the "WTF are you thinking, Jamal" game threads to remind people of our frustration? I was beginning to come around on Jamal because at the end of the year he seemed to be "getting it". Then comes summer and he begins speaking again. Good riddance, Jamal.

People say we lost Jamal for nothing, but the fact is, the money we would have spent on Jamal is available to spend in the future now. Pax went to the mall with $50 to buy a sweater. Where many of us may have bought the best available sweater that day, Pax realized that there was not a sweater he was interested in, put his $50 in his pocket, and left the store. Next week (next year, etc) he'll go back to the mall. When he finds the sweater he wants (ERob style Koogi!), he'll have his $50 to buy it. In the process, Pax also picked up a nice t-shirt (FWilliams), some boxer shorts (Harrington), and a comfortable pair of house slippers (Mutombo). Certainly better than losing Jamal for nothing.

Also this summer, we have added Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni -- three guys who by all accounts are aggressive players with high B-Ball IQ who come from winning traditions. Two of whom address our glaring weakness from last season (small forward!). Do I wish we had one more tall guard? Absolutely! I hope Pax still works to address this need. What he has done, though, is made this team into one with a scoring threat at every position and with an entire team full of players who value DEFENSE.

Some questions which remain unresolved:

Will Mutombo play for the Bull?
Will we address the need for a taller guard?
Will Pip retire?
ERob?
Jefferies?

Still a lot of questions to be answered before opening tip, but I've been satisfied with the direction we've taken so far. My opening day roster?

*PG* Kirk, Frank, Chris
*SG* Eddie, Ben, (FA or trade)
*SF* Chapu, Luol, Lint
*PF* Tyson, AD, Othella
*C* Eddy, Dikembe

This line-up doesn't suck.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I wish I could enjoy some of the pessimism many of you are reveling in, but I'm finding it very difficult to do so. Maybe I'm just addicted to the K-Aid?
> 
> Before this summer, I was on record that losing Jamal for nothing was not something we could afford. I was assured by many that an S&T for an RFA was impossible, and that we would either sign Jamal or lose him for nothing. Given that scenario, it's a no-brainer to sign him. What the Bull did instead, was parlay Jamal into cap flexibility. The Bull also sent a message that playing for stats is not acceptable, and that defense and playing within the team is.
> ...


Fantastic post Wynn.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

That is a great post Wynn.

And right on the money!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Take a look at our schedule to start the season. It's hard to see how a very young team (with little experience playing together, to boot) have much of a chance of setting a strong tone for the rest of the season. Some of our key players (Gordon, Deng) are counted on for huge roles and they've never played so many games on the road in a short time span nor have they played against this level of talent. It's a daunting task, to say the least.

It's a repeat scenario of the past several years. The season is a wash after the circus trip, and the perpetual losing grates on every player and fan.

Our team has become a perpetual minor league team. Major league teams have major league players. Minor league teams develop raw talent into major league players and then see their talent move on up to the big leagues. Minor league teams also feature aging former big leaguers on their way down.

In spite of all his foibles, Crawford was one of maybe two players on the whole roster that really resembled an actual big leaguer, and he's the latest in a stream of talent we've developed but not had the patience to stick with. Guys who are actually able to produce against NBA level talent and give us half a shot at winning games on the circus trip.

People look back at the guys we've given up on and say we could have a roster now that would be a contender. They miss the point. It's the organization, and how it has repeatedly let our best players move on to the big leagues. The organization isn't trying to win, it's trying to keep from having big leaguers on the roster! Paxson's moves have done nothing to change the pattern, but rather reinforce it.

The organization must sell kool-aid or watch its profits disappear. We're being sold a bill of goods about the potential of this minor leaguer or that minor leaguer while the actual NBA ready guys are shipped out for cap savings or some other excuse backed by the organization's marketing muscle.

We've squandered 5 years of lottery picks and quality free agent signings and have gotten to the point where we had to watch a team with more than half the roster with actual NBDL players. 

I still want to hear, just once, the words "anything it takes to win" from anyone in the organization. Then MY dour mood on the club will change.

Peace and out. Tomorrow.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> We've squandered 5 years of lottery picks and quality free agent signings and have gotten to the point where we had to watch a team with more than half the roster with actual NBDL players.
> 
> ...



Please list the 8 (more than half) NBDL players that were on the roster last season. I'm also kinda curious about the quality free agent signings. Who might they be?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Take a look at our schedule to start the season. It's hard to see how a very young team (with little experience playing together, to boot) have much of a chance of setting a strong tone for the rest of the season. Some of our key players (Gordon, Deng) are counted on for huge roles and they've never played so many games on the road in a short time span nor have they played against this level of talent. It's a daunting task, to say the least.
> 
> It's a repeat scenario of the past several years. The season is a wash after the circus trip, and the perpetual losing grates on every player and fan.
> ...


Excellent post, I agree.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Please list the 8 (more than half) NBDL players that were on the roster last season. I'm also kinda curious about the quality free agent signings. Who might they be?


I am sure he is exaggerating, still, I would say the Bulls had ENTIRELY too much NBDL "talent" on their roster last season:

Shirley, Dupree, Linton Johnson, Pargo (who does have some real talent). Having one...MAYBE two would be ok, but 4? come on.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm gonna have to agree with DaBullz and kinda of disagree with him. We're heading in the right direction, but we're still incredibly young...Curry is 22, Chandler is 22, Hinrich is our oldest starter and he's a 2nd year guy, Gordon and Deng are rookies. That road trip out west is always brutal and that's what sets the tone of our season. If we get swept out there again, our season is a wrap...we have no heart because we our so young. Meanwhile, we've built very nicely. Hinrich and Gordon could easily be a poor man's Snow and Iverson (I still think Gordon is a future Top 10 player)...Deng, Chandler, and Curry is formidable, but like I said it's how they develop. We're still waiting for the big kids to put it together, Hinrich and Gordon can hold their own, and Chapu will give Deng time to develop. It's all about how Chandler and Curry play this year.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Oversimplifying*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Take a look at our schedule to start the season. It's hard to see how a very young team (with little experience playing together, to boot) have much of a chance of setting a strong tone for the rest of the season. Some of our key players (Gordon, Deng) are counted on for huge roles and they've never played so many games on the road in a short time span nor have they played against this level of talent. It's a daunting task, to say the least.
> 
> It's a repeat scenario of the past several years. The season is a wash after the circus trip, and the perpetual losing grates on every player and fan.
> ...


I don't really want to get in to a long debate about this. And I respect your opinions and assessments about the Bulls. But I think you're oversimplifying what has happened, and ignoring obvious differences between the two regimes (including three coaches) that the Bulls have suffered in the past six years. 

I mean, the implication of your recent spate of posts is that Pax wants to field a team of NBDLers because he likes to lose, if only he can save money while wringing it out of poor sops like us fans, who plop down wads of cash while salivating everytime we hear "Da Bullz!!!"

More than one poster has drawn your attention to the fact that Paxson first has to undo what was done by Krause, which was to emphasize Basketball potential and athleticism at the expense of basketball sense and skill (starting, I might add, with the addition of ERob). 

Such a collection of unformed talent, later combined with sensitive and fragile egos like those of Rose, Jamal (Eddy and Marshall to a lesser degree), made the early trip out West a sure disaster guaranteed to destroy any motivation to listen to coach or to sacrifice oneself for charges or any other such foolish waste of energy and effort. 

Youth is one thing...but babies are another. What we had was a collection of babies who whined and cried and put their heads down and took it in the rear. 

This is what Paxson is addressing. He is cleaning house in order to change how this team responds to adversity. Everyone says, we turned on Jalen (Jamal) when he didn't carry the team, so how much more will Ben, Luol or Kirk suffer when they can't do so this year! Well, IMO, and I did not watch every game or even close, the reason people turned was because when the going got tough, our young athletic talents turned off their minds and decided to just do what they wanted, playing selfishly, for stats, or however else you want to characterize it. 

I think you are talking about this as an economics driven game, only, like some Basketball Marxist. But that's nuts. Anyone who saw Paxson play or heard him announce knows that he loves the game as much as anyone, that he had a standard for how it should be played, and that is what is driving him, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK of the economics of his team (including the Luxury tax, but also being mindful not to commit long term dollars to people who are not willing willing to commit long term effort and teamwork).

I could go on, but I promised not to make this a long argument. The West Coast trip may well be hard for the new Bulls, and they may lose most if not all of their games (But I bet they break the streak this year). But I don't think this team will start sucking their thumbs if it happens. And I think that you're underselling what Pax is doing. Of course, we don't know until it happens. 

But I think that Pax was right. The real problem with this team was that it was weak, not athletically, but mentally. He saw a place for JC, if JC was willing to acknowledge the truth and see himself for what he is and "might" be. But he was willing to let JC go (getting a nice pair of slippers and some Hanes on the way , nice analogy Wynn!) if JC wasn't willing to buy in. This is not to say that it's JC's fault, even. I don't think Pax made a judgment on JC in that sense. He just made it plain what JC had to be willing to do from now on, and under what conditions. JC didn't want it? OK. See you later and wish you success. 

Now, Pax is hoping that he can still salvage Eddy and Tyson. Eddy is moaning a little bit about it. But (although Eddy still carries a big load!) the center of gravity is shifting from the whining to the working group. And this is what Paxson has been talking about, right? That if there were enough people with the ethic AND the talent, they might be able to pull Eddy in the right direction? 

I suppose your counter might be that could have been accomplished by bringing in established talent like Latrell Sprewell and Antoine Walker. I can't say if that would have worked. But I see what Pax is doing, and I like it.

Peace ;-)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I am sure he is exaggerating, still, I would say the Bulls had ENTIRELY too much NBDL "talent" on their roster last season:
> ...


You named 4 NBDL guys. Just how good was Jefferies? Or Brunson? Blount?

The good news is Dupree and Brunson are gone. The bad news is we have Trybanski to replace him and Pax is hard at work to bring us Eddie Griffin.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Take a look at our schedule to start the season. It's hard to see how a very young team (with little experience playing together, to boot) have much of a chance of setting a strong tone for the rest of the season. Some of our key players (Gordon, Deng) are counted on for huge roles and they've never played so many games on the road in a short time span nor have they played against this level of talent. It's a daunting task, to say the least.
> 
> It's a repeat scenario of the past several years. The season is a wash after the circus trip, and the perpetual losing grates on every player and fan.
> ...


Wow good stuff !!




> I still want to hear, just once, the words "anything it takes to win" from anyone in the organization.


Oh how I would love to hear that at least once before this decade is up  

Our schedule is brutal up until the January heck we may not have 5 wins by then .I will be watching though and hoping they prove me wrong but I dont see it happening .

We may be challenging that 15 win team of several years ago


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You named 4 NBDL guys. Just how good was Jefferies? Or Brunson? Blount?
> ...


Blount!!!! He who was crucified on the altar of Pax's obsession for NBDLers?

Eddie Griffin!!!! Maybe, Adrian Griffin? 

Trybanski, Jefferies will be cut (when? you know....)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW, and I've written about this many times, it is my opinion that the way to turn the team around is to have a combination of vets and youth. You need the vets in a huge way for the circus trip, and then you can ease the youth into the games as the season progresses.

The way Krause and now Paxson have put together teams (and Pax has had TWO offseasons now) is to rely on the young guys far too heavily when they are at best suited to be role players in the short term. 

I do not believe you could have MJ himself in a lineup with Chandler, Curry, JWill, and Crawford and win on the circus trip. Of course Rose isn't MJ.

I DO believe you could have MJ, Pip, Harper, Rodman, and Curry and win. Or MJ, Pip, Crawford, Rodman, and Cartwright. I can name many other permutations, but I hope you get the picture.

Think I'm taking the championship team and that's unfair? Rose, Marshall, Antoine Walker, Chandler, and JWill would have had a real shot, in my book.

The big elephant in the room that nobody talks about is how we've annointed our players as the "next someone great" and given them starting jobs they haven't earned. The guys who've played well enough to earn the job by playing their way into the rotation (Crawford, Fizer, ERob) end up cut loose, or riding the pine for no apparent reason.

There's now no longer a proven scorer on the team, other than Curry. We're watching a slow motion repeat of last season's negotiations between Pax and Crawford with Pax and Curry now.

(Someone asked about our FAs, so I point to Marshall and Mercer as guys who contributed in a huge way, considering).


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Good post, Wynn.

DaBullz also raises a good point. The first paragraph of his post is right on the mark. Few rebuilding teams are put to the test as early as the Bulls are year after year. You don't get off to fast starts when your schedule always seems to be punctuated in November with an extended road trip out West. This year's no different. Eight out our first 11 (and 9 out of the first 14) games are away from the United Center.

At the beginning of the season the Bulls will have to deal with two other handicaps: inexperience and a lack of familiarity with each other as teammates.

But guess what? We were no better off last season when we lost all five games during our November West Coast trip and began the season 4-12. And at that time we had the benefit of veteran leadership with Rose and Marshall.

So we'll deal with it this year and in the future as well. We'll start out slow once again. But this year it appears we're going into battle with a larger collection of players who might be properly categorized as "tough-minded." That probably won't translate into many early season road wins this November. But it will help them survive the ordeal a little better and learn from it as a group. Then when next season rolls around I'm betting that West Coast trip won't be so daunting for this same group of players.

No doubt about it, we're going to get off to another tough start this season. Paxson's admitted that you don't win consistently in the league with so much youth. But its about growing and learning together. Its about having the character to get back up quickly when you're knocked on your butt. This team may lose the majority of their games in November, but they won't lose with a whimper. And in time their collective resiliancy should translate into more and more wins regardless of the venue.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Think I'm taking the championship team and that's unfair? Rose, Marshall, Antoine Walker, Chandler, and JWill would have had a real shot, in my book.


That team is a worse version of the Toronto Raptors.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> That team is a worse version of the Toronto Raptors.


Fair point.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Good post, Wynn.
> 
> DaBullz also raises a good point. The first paragraph of his post is right on the mark. Few rebuilding teams are put to the test as early as the Bulls are year after year. You don't get off to fast starts when your schedule always seems to be punctuated in November with an extended road trip out West. This year's no different. Eight out our first 11 (and 9 out of the first 14) games are away from the United Center.
> ...


If Im not mistaken Rose was injured and Donyell had just been reinserted back into the starting lineup after not playing early for no apparent reason other than BC wanting to play Lonnie Baxter.

Lets not forget what happened to that team early BC and Paxson ticked off our two most productive veterans at the start of the season with some questionable coaching moves and tactics .

Lets not also forget before that circus trip the trade was leaked .


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Fair point.


Then again, so are the Bulls.  

At least we have a mascot.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> If Im not mistaken Rose was injured and Donyell had just been reinserted back into the starting lineup after not playing early for no apparent reason other than BC wanting to play Lonnie Baxter.
> ...


Rose missed all of training camp. Yell played < 20 minutes in 3 of those losses, Rose played < 30 minutes in 3 of those losses. Some would argue they didn't play because we were so far behind early. Others would argue our bench was just 2 deep and we were trying to play an unfit Pippen as a starter or 10 TO/game Hinrich recovering from his viral infection and weight loss.

And, oh yeah, Cartwright was fired in the middle of those games. Heck of a way to try to win those tough games.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Rose missed all of training camp. Yell played < 20 minutes in 3 of those losses, Rose played < 30 minutes in 3 of those losses. Some would argue they didn't play because we were so far behind early. Others would argue our bench was just 2 deep and we were trying to play an unfit Pippen as a starter or 10 TO/game Hinrich recovering from his viral infection and weight loss.
> ...


Rose was playing with a broken hand and Curry was out of shape to start the season.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> FWIW, and I've written about this many times, it is my opinion that the way to turn the team around is to have a combination of vets and youth. You need the vets in a huge way for the circus trip, and then you can ease the youth into the games as the season progresses.
> 
> The way Krause and now Paxson have put together teams (and Pax has had TWO offseasons now) is to rely on the young guys far too heavily when they are at best suited to be role players in the short term.
> ...


But this is the point...I don't think Paxson is anointing anyone as the next someone great. He's saying, this guy will contribute to the team winning some games, and....we believe he'll put in the hard work to make himself even more of a contributor as time goes on. 

That's a very different message than the one Krause tried to sell (...The adrenaline is running deep in my body right now... (his quote when thinking about the draft of Chandler and Curry, and selling EBrand to Clipperland)) He became enamoured of finding the next big star. I don't think Paxson is following that road at all. And that's why I think your lumping together of the Paxson and Krause regimes is NOT relevant or appropriate. Paxson is NOT selling stars. He's working toward being able to sell a team of good basketball players who will keep working to get better, even as he works to facilitate their progress.

The comparison with JC's negotiations and Eddy's is appropriate, because the same issue is at stake...Are you going to commit to the tough guy vision, or not. If you aren't, we can't commit the dollars to you we need to commit to those who will. 

I'm glad you backed off the NBDL stuff...It's laughable.

Edit---Also, I think Paxson is valuing leadership more than age. You are certainly right that a mix is ideal. But the mix has to be such that team leadership is clear and helpful. He hoped that Pippen could do it last year, but Pippen crapped out. I think he's being very careful about the kind of veteran leadership he brings in, while still keeping the focus on the development of Tyson and Eddy.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Our team has become a perpetual minor league team. Major league teams have major league players. Minor league teams develop raw talent into major league players and then see their talent move on up to the big leagues. Minor league teams also feature aging former big leaguers on their way down.
> 
> In spite of all his foibles, Crawford was one of maybe two players on the whole roster that really resembled an actual big leaguer


DaBullz, I couldn't disagree more, especially if Jamal is your poster child for our "one or two players" who resembled a big leaguer.

Which part of these accurate portrayals in his game most represent the qualities you are trying to positively portray?

* streetball game and mentality
* difficulty in following directions on the floor
* run-ins with every coach including sitting numerous fourth quarters

Thats a good start to defining bush-league not big league IMO.

No sense creating a long boorish list. Jamal's got warts. They've all got warts. But, somehow Jamal is the poster child for the "big leaguer" we need? Eh.

I'll keep an open mind on this and maybe you can convince me. Maybe we can start with who the other player that resembles a big leaguer is. Where do Chandler, Curry, Hinrich among the young fit? I suppose its also open to interpretation what you mean by big leaguer. If its a guy who looks like he belongs in the league, why weren't Davis, Williams or Gill included in the list. Like them or not, they belong in the NBA and have something to offer. If you're talking about a big leaguer as a guy who is or could become a star/superstar, well, that opinion is no more valid than those who believe Jamal will never amount to anything special either.

Lots of belief that Jamal is the next Brand, Artest, Miller. I'd argue he's going to the toughest scenario of the four. I tend to think Jamal wasn't a very good fit here. Lots of folks believe Curry has to eventually go because the hometown connection is hurting him and a change of scenery will do him good. If I'm going to sign on to a theory its that the same could be said of Jamal. He's had a tough run here and a change of scenery is probably best for him. I think its clear once the PC dialogue ended that Jamal wanted out and NY was his choice so he is pretty much in agreement as well.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats your opinion on his game that doesnt make them accurate .


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

I know people always post about Jamal's streetball game, but I really don't think he plays that way in reality. His crossover is streetball style, but that's really about it. He doesn't throw behind the back passes or take the ball to the hoop with authority (which anyone who's played on a real street court will tell you is the key to being any good).

Not to criticize Jamal, the posts above just caught my attention about this.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats your opinion on his game that doesnt make them accurate .


Nor does your opinion, DaBullz or Ace make them correct. As if it isn't obvious enough, they are all our opinions for the record. 

That said, I'd find it difficult for ANYONE to argue with at least 2 of the 3.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> I know people always post about Jamal's streetball game, but I really don't think he plays that way in reality. His crossover is streetball style, but that's really about it. He doesn't throw behind the back passes or take the ball to the hoop with authority (which anyone who's played on a real street court will tell you is the key to being any good).
> 
> Not to criticize Jamal, the posts above just caught my attention about this.


Lag, don't forget about the other streetball things he doesn't do - the dribble between the opponents legs, the pass to himself off the backboard, or the incessant desire to dribble between his legs 3 times before launching a three pointer. To me thats streetball and not teamball


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Lag, don't forget about the other streetball things he doesn't do - the dribble between the opponents legs, the pass to himself off the backboard, or the incessant desire to dribble between his legs 3 times before launching a three pointer. To me thats streetball and not teamball


I see what you're saying. I don't agree that streetball is always detrimental to team ball though (maybe that's not what you're saying). I'm defnitely on the "Crawford was me first" side of this debate and I don't think he was a very good team player - assist numbers aside. Jalen Rose and Kobe Bryant get a bunch of assists too, but I don't think anyone considers them team players.

As far as Crawford's street game goes, I agree he does a lot of the flashy stuff (I forgot about the off the board dunks). My point is more that his soft game wouldn't translate very well to a tough streetball game. The fact that he's 6'5" would make a big difference obviously, but he's too quick to shy away from contact. He'd have to be one of those guys that dribbles it b/w his legs a million times and then throws an oop to some huge dude for the dunk.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the reason for a dour mood for some is simple a 23 win team made no clear improvements .

maybe deng and gordon are good picks and maybe nocioni is a player too ...but rookies dont make big impacts unless they are special if they are 21 and have to be just about insanely good to be impactful at 19. nocioni is a late bloomer but he also would have to be very surprising to be a huge upgrade over e-rob whom i consider a passable starter...all the while they lost crawford. 3 role players (in at least their 1st season) dont equal a team's leading scorer no matter how you feel about that player.

the Jc trade was a loss plain and simple , it wont help next season unless f.will is so much better than expected and even then it should be out of the question that he is better than JC in a similar position.

there are 2 other issues mental toughness and maturity. the rooks have never had any adversity in basketball , no one knows how they will take losing ...and they will lose especially in the early going. some players can take it, some cant, jwill who was touted as tough , in fact that was supposed to be his strength along with his speed and quickness couldn't take it , and no one should have taken it as a certainty because he had never shown he could. kirk another player considered tough took the losing better but even he was showing cracks in the foundation last season but i have a lot more faith in him than i did in williams for he fought through it and started to play better through it. No one can say how deng gordon or gordon will take the losing until the do in fact have to lose.

and in maturity both pyhsical and mental the bulls are still way below the curve , every time they can get a player in his prime who has a decent head on his shoulders , they botch it , to me the poster boy is not Jc, its fizer , he had an acl injury , and almost every player who has that surgery has a bad 1st year back while they regain their confidence , focus and quickness. But i really cant be convinced that a player like paul shirley has more upside than him or dupree who was protected instead of him and the bulls let go was better move than retaining fizer, he is 27 and a bull pyhsically and was a hard worker , who did take on the good times and bad times ...and in the 2002-03 season the best stretch the bulls actually had wasn't that 20 games at the end of the season it was the last 28 games fizer played in that season in which they went 13-15 which is slightly better than the 9-11 finish. when healthy he is a player who is mentally tough enough to get things done in the 4th quarter and bulls have a precious few who can say that. fizer was still hurt last year but he was still getting better as the year went on. he is supposedly everything paxson and skiles say they are looking for and he is a vet entering his prime to boot.and they lost him for nothing , not even insignifigant cap space.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Didn't the Bucks have either Gary Payton or Ray Allen on their team as the leading scorer on 02/03 and get better in 03/04?

Didn't Utah lose both John Stockton and Karl Malone from 02/03 and were nearly as good in 03/04?

Did the Bulls lose Elton Brand for 18 year old rookies and eRob and get better?

It's crazy :whofarted to think that Bulls can't recover from losing JC.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> DaBullz, I couldn't disagree more, especially if Jamal is your poster child for our "one or two players" who resembled a big leaguer.
> ...


I don't suggest that Jamal is the next Brand, Artest, or Miller. He's the next in the string of Brand, Artest, and Miller we bail on, only to use less experienced guys in their place (and guys who, not so coincidentally perform at a lesser level). Keep those guys and Crawford would be a very capable starter or sub on a quality young team.

Curry is the other guy on the team that resembles a major leaguer. He played 73 games and at least can be counted on to score somewhat consistently. Hinrich is a rookie, but he might be considered a major leaguer this season or next, depending on if he ups his shooting percentage (IMO).

JYD is absolutely a big leaguer. AD is one of those aging vets who would be the Crash Davis (see Bull Durham) type on a minor league team. Same with Gill. Those guys are capable of filling holes in a championship caliber team, but are painful to watch play 30+ minutes a game because we have nobody else.

I've been quite harsh on Crawford, perhaps moreso than most. I think he absolutely blew games for the Bulls early in the season when he was the starting PG. We were in close games at halftime and he came out in the 2nd half jacking up ill-advised shots and taking the team (and his teammates) out of the game that we played to (at least) stay close. In spite of all his warts (which I already wrote), he's still the best player on the Bulls from last season, and we got SQUAT for him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I wish I could enjoy some of the pessimism many of you are reveling in, but I'm finding it very difficult to do so. Maybe I'm just addicted to the K-Aid?


Nice post Wynn, but let me provide some counterpoint.



> Before this summer, I was on record that losing Jamal for nothing was not something we could afford. I was assured by many that an S&T for an RFA was impossible, and that we would either sign Jamal or lose him for nothing. Given that scenario, it's a no-brainer to sign him. What the Bull did instead, was parlay Jamal into cap flexibility. The Bull also sent a message that playing for stats is not acceptable, and that defense and playing within the team is.
> 
> I know this is not a popular opinion, and that many would rather focus on the points (17.3 per game) that we lost. I look at it as losing a guy who would rather dominate the ball than follow his coach's gameplan. Why all the mystery benchings? Beacuase Jamal was smarter than the coach. Do I need to pull up all of the "WTF are you thinking, Jamal" game threads to remind people of our frustration? I was beginning to come around on Jamal because at the end of the year he seemed to be "getting it". Then comes summer and he begins speaking again. Good riddance, Jamal.


I guess I don't understand what he said that was so damning.

While I was also super frustrated with watching Jamal sometimes, I also don't think your interpretation of things is the only one.

Let me ask a question... what exactly was our "gameplan" last year? What other options were available to us, other than what Jamal did? *I ask not just to argue the point on Jamal, but to lead us to question what will be different next year*

I mean, to say that Jamal dominated the ball too much, and didn't pass enough, and took too many shots, there has to be some sort of recognized alternative to what he was doing on the court.

So, what were the alternatives? I honestly look at the rest of the team and don't see any. Jamal played last year like a guy who was one of the few options on a team with not enough options.

It's certainly true that he dominated the ball, but this is true of all of our guards last year, because putting the ball in everyone else's hands, except AD's, was generally an adventure. Even worse, most of those guys who didn't know what to do with the ball didn't know how to get the ball or move without the ball in the first place. 

*The appearance of Jamal dominating the ball (just the same way Kirk, Kendal, and Pargo often did) and not passing enough had more to do with the inability of our other players to handle the ball and get in position to get the ball than it did with some form of "selfishness" on Jamal's part (or those other guys).*

Second, the issue with shooting "too much" is hard for me to square with the guys Jamal was usually on the court with. In order to say a player is shooting too much, there has to be another guy on the court who's not shooting enough. Who was that guy? Kirk shot quite a bit (and wasn't especially effective doing it either, for many of the same reasons Jamal wasn't). AD was about right. Lint, Dupree, JYD, Chandler... those guys weren't exactly doing anything to deserve more. Curry... I guess that's the bone of contention, but what I saw was that Curry could be denied the ball pretty effectively by other teams, and it was a bit of an adventure when he did get the ball. Plus there was the fact that he'd get winded pretty easily. *Add all that up, and it's pretty hard to say it would have been better, or possible, for someone else to shoot more and Jamal to shoot less.*

So, why all the benchings? Well no one... not me at least, is saying Jamal was a superstar. Within the context of his too limited options, Jamal didn't always take the right shots. He didn't wait for teammates to get position (though in fairness, this is partly excusable to the fact that his teammates often failed entirely to do so). And his defense, especially for the first couple of months after the trade, was pretty woeful, although he certainly picked it up and improved. I'd actually argue that by the end of the season, Jamal rated out as an OK, although not quite average defender on oposing SGs. While that's nothing to write home about, it's both 1) marked improvement from where he started and 2) better than anything we're likely to start the year with.



> People say we lost Jamal for nothing, but the fact is, the money we would have spent on Jamal is available to spend in the future now. Pax went to the mall with $50 to buy a sweater. Where many of us may have bought the best available sweater that day, Pax realized that there was not a sweater he was interested in, put his $50 in his pocket, and left the store. Next week (next year, etc) he'll go back to the mall. When he finds the sweater he wants (ERob style Koogi!), he'll have his $50 to buy it. In the process, Pax also picked up a nice t-shirt (FWilliams), some boxer shorts (Harrington), and a comfortable pair of house slippers (Mutombo). Certainly better than losing Jamal for nothing.


Which is nice, except it's going to be colder than **** next week and a sweater would have come in very handy. While, at the same time, we already had t-shirts, boxers, and slippers. 

Further, if things go ideally for the Bulls, it will be hard to see them being able to buy a sweater like Jamal in 2006. Let's indulge in another flavor of Kool-aid for a second. If Curry and Chandler both play well and get offers (combined) something like $20M next summer, and we sign ANYONE (and I do mean anyone) of note between now and then (in two freaking years), or maybe even we like Frank Williams enough to give him the QO... then we don't have enough cap room to do much of anything with. That is, we might be able to make an MLE style offer to someone, but I think the dream of actually being under the cap by a fair amount more than that is sketchy at best. 

Thus, when I look at the situation, I don't see that we've given ourselves a lot of flexibility to add more players. I think it's very possible that all we'll be able to do is wait two years and find that after we've paid out big money to our big kids, we won't have more than we would have had if we were over the cap in the first place to spend on anyone else.

And if that's the case, we could have just kept Jamal and still offer an MLE to a guy in 06.

So, which option presents more flexibility? 
1. We have less salary on the books now, and in 2006 we can maybe get an above MLE player, but quite possibly will get only an MLE player. Our tradeable assets appear unlikely to get us much if we're unwilling to trade any of our kids, and we are locked into NO significant FA signings because any significant signing would upset the apple cart for getting an above MLE guy in 2006.

2. We could have signed a slightly above MLE player now, who would be available and playing for our team, or an asset to trade for the next two seasons AND we could sign an MLE type player in 2006 as well.

Option two seems to give us more flexibility in a real sense. In the first option, we don't have much in the way of tradeable assets and we are committed to not signing a major FA for like two years. And when we do, there's a fair shot we won't be able to pay one any more than we could pay him if we were slightly over the cap.

In Option two, however, don't lose ability to sign an MLE level player in 06, but we do gain some flexibility in that we have a young, pretty nice player under a tradeable contract.



> Also this summer, we have added Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni -- three guys who by all accounts are aggressive players with high B-Ball IQ who come from winning traditions. Two of whom address our glaring weakness from last season (small forward!).


Absolutely agree here. We will be better without a doubt. The question is just whether, in both the short and the longer run, we've made ourselves as much better as we could have. While I absolutely applaud adding Deng and Noicini, and to a somewhat more uncertain extent, Gordon, I think we've also perhaps taken the wrong path with respect to Jamal, and because of that we're not going to see the *level* of short-run improvement we would have seen in the alternative, and we will ultimately have less flexibility in the long run.

It's two steps forward and one step back. I would really have liked to have seen three steps forward. Potentially it's two steps back if our kids don't react well to the increased adversity they'll face. 

Thus, while I think you've argued your point of view very well, and of course you could be right (and I hope you are), I'll remain a skeptic


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Didn't the Bucks have either Gary Payton or Ray Allen on their team as the leading scorer on 02/03 and get better in 03/04?
> 
> Didn't Utah lose both John Stockton and Karl Malone from 02/03 and were nearly as good in 03/04?
> ...


But that's only one side of the coin. The Bulls, for example, posted a slightly better record after trading Brand for Chandler, but it's likely they would have been better still had they kept him.

OK, so they won 15 games with Brand and 21 games the next year with Miller and Artest leading the way in most of them. Perhaps if we'd kept around Elton, we'd have won 26 or 27.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Let me ask a question... what exactly was our "gameplan" last year? What other options were available to us, other than what Jamal did? *I ask not just to argue the point on Jamal, but to lead us to question what will be different next year*
> 
> I mean, to say that Jamal dominated the ball too much, and didn't pass enough, and took too many shots, there has to be some sort of recognized alternative to what he was doing on the court.


I understand this logic to a point. But clearly Pax and Skiles *had* some gameplan which they asked Crawford to *conform* to.

If Pax and Skiles *hated* JC's game, it must have been due to his inability to conform to that gameplan.

For example, he didn't go to the basket enough and put up stupid shots with a lot of time on the shot clock.

So why is this going to get a heckva a lot better when Crawford is surrounded by better players or Crawford magically matures?

Isn't this a different kind of Kool-Aid?

I don't necessarily see JC buying into the role of a third guard here. He could in NY. That's not Paxson's fault.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But that's only one side of the coin. The Bulls, for example, posted a slightly better record after trading Brand for Chandler, but it's likely they would have been better still had they kept him.
> ...


That's fine. The Bulls still improved despite losing their leading scorer. And when you look at it closely, there is even a lot more room for optomism.

As Bulls, Crawford was no where as good as Brand.

Hinrich, Curry and Chandler should be the young vets that improve ala Artest and Miller.

And I expect Deng, Gordan and Nocicci to be a heck of a lot more effective out of the gate than a 18 yr Chander, a 18 yr old Curry and an injured eRob.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> .
> ...


an injured player and 2 people not ready to play but are getting entitlement minutes is not really much to set the bar for, especially considering the reason a team would wait on chandler and curry is their franchise talent something that is not the case with gordon , nocioni or deng.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> an injured player and 2 people not ready to play but are getting entitlement minutes is not really much to set the bar for, especially considering the reason a team would wait on chandler and curry is their franchise talent something that is not the case with gordon , nocioni or deng.


I agree it's a very low bar. 

Just like replacing JC's contribution to the team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree it's a very low bar.
> ...


did jamal come to your house and pee on your dog or something ?

seriously saying you expect deng , gordons and nocioni's contributions are better than nothing is not a high endorsement for 2 top 7 picks who are deemed nba ready (although not by me really) and pax's major offseason FA aquisition, is weak, weak in your hopes and even weaker that is what you have been forced to put your hopes on.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> did jamal come to your house and pee on your dog or something ?
> ...


Dude, do you have as big a problem with logic as you do with punctuation?

You seem to think that the Bulls are up the creek b/c the lost an "average starter".

I provided a couple examples where teams lost GOOD starters and improved.

Did John Paxson come to your house and pee on you?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Did John Paxson come to your house and pee on you?


If so, it would be a departure from the Bulls' standard operating procedure . . . normally Golden Shower-o-Grams are delivered by the promotions department.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Pistons recovered nicely from losing Grant Hill pretty nicely. Wasn't overnight.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> If so, it would be a departure from the Bulls' standard operating procedure . . . normally Golden Shower-o-Grams are delivered by the promotions department.


I didn't even know about this product line. Is this why you keep bringing up the revenue angle?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

:twave:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> did jamal come to your house and pee on your dog or something ?
> ...


Is your idea of a good team one in which Jamal Crawford is its' best player?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't even know about this product line. Is this why you keep bringing up the revenue angle?


You mean revenue stream?

In all seriousness, sorry to pee-jack this thread. I just found the idea of John Paxson going to Grinch's house to pee on him strangely hysterical.

I am not at all a mature person, in case that wasn't already clear.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> You mean revenue stream?


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude, do you have as big a problem with logic as you do with punctuation?
> ...


sorry the bulls were already up the creek ...unless you consider 23-59 a good record , if so maybe you should brush up on your math skills because 23 out of 82 isn't a good ratio.

my problem is that there is no improvements made to help the situation. if you complain that the team is too young ...the *logical* thing to do is to stop bringing in underage players and rookies .

but i guess that concept is too much for you.

the pistons brought in players who are far better than deng gordon and nocioni so the rule doesn't apply , unless you think ben wallace , chauncey billups and rip hamilton aren't as good. and what do they have in common they were all 25 or older at the time they were aquired its the same as waiting for players of kirk's ilk and then bringing them in as a 3 year veteran...instead of what the bulls do which is draft players who are young develop them and then let them go for nothing or close to nothing, or exchange them for players who in need of more developing. 

thats filling their pockets , not making a strong team, but someone like yourself likes being lied to and misled ...well if thats your bag hey, i'm not going to stop you , but i'm not going to accpet it i am going to complain.

i have a problem with anyone who says they want to fill their team with hard workers and then discards some of their hardest workers (fizer , hassell and yes crawford) . for players who not as good, i consider it a backward move. since you called Jc a avg. starter ...did the bulls get an avg. starter in return for him? most people with common sense say no. if they didn't get at least what they lost , its a backward move ...or is that too hard a concept for you?

waiting 2 years for a free agent signing that if C & C are good will only be for the MLE because they will take up 20 mil on the cap by themselves most likley doesn't intrigue me and its basically saying that most of the roster that the bulls currently have will be turned over in the meantime so its 2 more years of extreme losing. and I honestly think its paxson's goal to tank next season also , so he can keep the pick he dealt for deng for at least another year...why would I support a Gm that does this?

I want my team to win and if they cant win , at least I want both players and management to try their best...but i guess this too is a concept to hard for you to fathom.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Is your idea of a good team one in which Jamal Crawford is its' best player?


no it isn't but thats no reason to trade him , what if next year the bulls win 23 and kirk is the best player do we get rid of him for being the best player on a 23 win team?

we have to build on what we have rip it apart and keep starting all over.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> no it isn't but thats no reason to trade him , what if next year the bulls win 23 and kirk is the best player do we get rid of him for being the best player on a 23 win team?
> ...


Sorry, I dont want a 54 million dollar Jamal Crawfraud on my team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> no it isn't but thats no reason to trade him , what if next year the bulls win 23 and kirk is the best player do we get rid of him for being the best player on a 23 win team?
> ...


Or trade for talent in return.

Please stay focused on basketball and not other posters.

Insults don't make any points valid.

This is not addressed specifically to happygrinch.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> no it isn't but thats no reason to trade him , what if next year the bulls win 23 and kirk is the best player do we get rid of him for being the best player on a 23 win team?
> ...


Fair point, and I agree. I've gone on record as wishing the ownership of this team would simply sign _ any _ player beyond their rookie deal. This whole revolving door concept is getting this team nowhere.

I think Pax is trying to acquire guys who fit the mold of hard working, hard playing players who actually have talent. Dupree and Shirley are gone. Lint may stick but I would expect his role to be reduced from what it was last season. While the Knicks got the best player in the deal, losing Jerome WIlliams isn't such a bad thing. Frank Williams will contribute and Othella Harrington will make us quickly forget Jerome, I never met a layup I couldn't miss, Williams. 

Bottom line, without Jamal Crawford and with the trade, draft and acquisition of Nocioni, I think this is a better team than what we had last season. How much better remains to be seen.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Nor does your opinion, DaBullz or Ace make them correct. As if it isn't obvious enough, they are all our opinions for the record.
> ...



Difficulty with following directions on the floor ? 

Were you on the floor ? I dont see when or how this has ever been proving .

Sitting out 4th quarter is not classified as having a run-in with the coach .

Kirk sat in the 4th before as well as the entire starting lineup does that mean they all had runs ins with Skiles ?

The Bulls havent had a real coach in so long that now we are mistaking a simple coaching manuever as somehow the player and the coach having a run in ? 

Kobe has more sauce in his game than any player in the league doesnt make him any less of a player . If Crawford was a street baller he wouldnt have the reputation of being soft that he does .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I just think it is sort of funny to hear people talk about how "Paxson is bringing in hard workers" when Jamal Crawford and Trenton Hassell were BOTH very hard workers and look where they are at now.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I just think it is sort of funny to hear people talk about how "Paxson is bringing in hard workers" when Jamal Crawford and Trenton Hassell were BOTH very hard workers and look where they are at now.


Fine then. How about guys that work hard AND play well?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I just think it is sort of funny to hear people talk about how "Paxson is bringing in hard workers" when Jamal Crawford and Trenton Hassell were BOTH very hard workers and look where they are at now.


As one of "those" people, I might mention that Hassell and Crawford are very different cases. I doubt that JP disliked anything about TH's game, except that he wasn't much of an offensive threat, and our need at the time was for someone with more height who could provide the energy and defensive effort at the 3. TH was overmatched at that spot, but had been forced into that role. 

Crawford did work hard, and he had talent. Crawford's problem, I believe, was quite complicated, but boiled down to the fact that he was and is quite weak mentally as a team competitor. He could not fill the role of team leader, not because of shot selection, but because he could be easily intimidated and distracted from the game plan. Paxson and Skiles want a team of people who won't back down. They were willing to work with Crawford and build him up in that way, but they didn't see a future for him as the number 1 guy in the backcourt, because of the apparent lack of inner strength or toughness.

If you're interested, please see my earlier posts in this thread, somewhere back on page 3 and 4.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine then. How about guys that work hard AND play well?



I'd be curious to know your definition of "play well."

By most measurements, Jamal was in the top 25%of all NBA players in terms of production. 

This was in his first season of every game, heavy minute play.

He has also shown considerable improvement on a year-to-year basis. 

Given that he is still a young player, its reasonable to assume he'll continue to improve.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Do you think it was wise to trade him for NOTHING?



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> As one of "those" people, I might mention that Hassell and Crawford are very different cases. I doubt that JP disliked anything about TH's game, except that he wasn't much of an offensive threat, and our need at the time was for someone with more height who could provide the energy and defensive effort at the 3. TH was overmatched at that spot, but had been forced into that role.
> ...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I just think it is sort of funny to hear people talk about how "Paxson is bringing in hard workers" when Jamal Crawford and Trenton Hassell were BOTH very hard workers and look where they are at now.


Excellent post Ace. While I think the mood of the club is overly pessimistic, peoples perceptions of Jamal, Trent and others that have been on the club are a complete contradiction and really shows alot of the hate that people have in terms of Jamal, in particular. Its interesting how he leads the club in scoring, and put in more Berto appearances then anyone last summer, minus Trent. But he is a bum who doesnt play well. Yet Captain Kirk is the messiah when he shoots 37% from the field. Just a complete blind contradiction


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Theres really no point getting into it. If you want to believe Crawford is this mega talent whose gonna go to NY and "blow up" as a superstar, that is certainly your prerogative. As for me, I'll continue to go by the opinion Bulls management and most of the media has of him since it seems closest to what I think. A talented kid with some real deficiencies. 

If the non-kool-aid drinkers prefer to feel the sky is falling because Jamal isn't here any longer, its okey dokey by me. He's no longer a Bull and I've moved on.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Theres really no point getting into it. If you want to believe Crawford is this mega talent whose gonna go to NY and "blow up" as a superstar, that is certainly your prerogative. As for me, I'll continue to go by the opinion Bulls management and most of the media has of him since it seems closest to what I think. A talented kid with some real deficiencies.
> 
> If the non-kool-aid drinkers prefer to feel the sky is falling because Jamal isn't here any longer, its okey dokey by me. He's no longer a Bull and I've moved on.


But lets give him a fair shake. And be consistent in regards to what he brought to the club, relative to his teammates.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Do you think it was wise to trade him for NOTHING?


Was it nothing? The odds are that Dikembe will be turned into some form of 2 guard, probably a decent one, and FW is thought to have some potential as an NBA role player. Harrington and JYD are washes, except that the contracts we got back are much better.

I don't think it was great that JC left. But I think that was as much JC's choice as Pax's. I think that Pax gave JC the vision of how he saw JC fitting in to the Bulls plans. The key, I think, is that Pax could not accept paying JC as a front line player when he doesn't have the make up to be that player. They gave him a vision of what kind of player they saw him being on the team they are trying to make, and JC didn't like it, and preferred what IT promised him. Pax accomodated his desire and let him go and got some things back in return that might serve his purposes in the short term, or as assets to exchange for needs later on. 

It wasn't for nothing. And most importantly, it wasn't "for no good 'basketball' reason." There was a basketball and a team salary structure reason for doing what he did. That is the issue that this thread is addressing...the direction the Bulls are going in. 

There have been too many claims by too many intelligent people on this board that Paxson "wants" to field a team of NBDLers, or that Paxson is "only" thinking about finances, or that all he cares about is "grinders" with no talent, like himself (is the implication). But I think rlucas' initial post (coming from one who really questioned Pax and the job he was doing) made a pretty good point that the club really is going in a good direction, and that a coherent and good plan is in place AND is being executed.

Am I wrong, rlucas?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Theres really no point getting into it. If you want to believe Crawford is this mega talent whose gonna go to NY and "blow up" as a superstar, that is certainly your prerogative. As for me, I'll continue to go by the opinion Bulls management and most of the media has of him since it seems closest to what I think. A talented kid with some real deficiencies.
> 
> If the non-kool-aid drinkers prefer to feel the sky is falling because Jamal isn't here any longer, its okey dokey by me. He's no longer a Bull and I've moved on.


FWIW,

My expectation is that Jamal goes to NY, decreases his scoring by 2PPG and increases his FG%. They will be VERY happy with him, especially if they have any injury downtime to Starbury or Houston.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Theres really no point getting into it. If you want to believe Crawford is this mega talent whose gonna go to NY and "blow up" as a superstar, that is certainly your prerogative. As for me, I'll continue to go by the opinion Bulls management and most of the media has of him since it seems closest to what I think. A talented kid with some real deficiencies.
> 
> If the non-kool-aid drinkers prefer to feel the sky is falling because Jamal isn't here any longer, its okey dokey by me. He's no longer a Bull and I've moved on.


no one is saying Jc has a perfect game or even one without some very real flaws and if it were an isolated incedent i would take it better , but after a while it becomes a trend and i am as annoyed with the loss of fizer as i am with crawford even though i dont talk about it nearly as much. and if by some miracle gordon is better as a rookie than JC is as a 5th year player i'll gladly eat my words and say i was wrong and that paxson was right and i am wrong .

but when i'm right and i will be i wont let it go because it will be not because i am some great prognosticator , it will be because the bulls themselves have done this on purpose to make the team just as weak as before.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> Was it nothing? The odds are that Dikembe will be turned into some form of 2 guard, probably a decent one, and FW is thought to have some potential as an NBA role player. Harrington and JYD are washes, except that the contracts we got back are much better.
> ...


Its my opinion that the mood is overly pessimistic. I think good pieces have been added. Ironically, its the least of the 3 talked about new editions, Deng, that will probably be the best. I believe Curry is what he is, a gifted offensive center who wont bring much to the club and that Chandler will eventually be the better player. While I would have liked to see the Bulls add atleast one piece that they could use in the Crawford trade, I do think it gives them flexibility. But if Mutombo turns into just Pike, then Ill jump on Pax for that. However, Pax is doing a good job this offseason. The club will improve, however the playoffs are a long shot. 

As for Jamal, I do think it turned into a fiasco. mostly caused by Goodwins insistence to only deal with NY. But I checked in saw Bulls.com 2 days before JC was gone. And the official Bulls site had a link saying check in for news on Jamals trade. That, no matter how you slice it, was a little rude. what if the trade didnt go through? It wasnt handled very professionally. All parties were guilty of that. 

Lets be real about the club. 32 wins or so would be very nice for this club. And I am happy with the direction of the club. But lets not blindly pat Pax on the back (as alot of us do) because it hasnt been a flawless summer. Anyone who would claim that is just a blind follower. But its been a step in the right direction. But itll be interesting to see how long before Pax and Skiles realize the Gordon Hinrich backcourt is a defensive sieve and that one of them ultimately has to go? That is the next question I feel that will need to be answered. But the 3 spot has been taken care of and the club does have flexible contracts to put together something later in the summer or year. All in all, Pax gets a B. Maybe a B+


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Theres really no point getting into it. If you want to believe Crawford is this mega talent whose gonna go to NY and "blow up" as a superstar, that is certainly your prerogative. As for me, I'll continue to go by the opinion Bulls management and most of the media has of him since it seems closest to what I think. A talented kid with some real deficiencies.
> 
> If the non-kool-aid drinkers prefer to feel the sky is falling because Jamal isn't here any longer, its okey dokey by me. He's no longer a Bull and I've moved on.


I don't get all the rhetoric on both sides.

It's not necessary to say he's a lazy bum to say he wasn't worth keeping and it's not necessary to say he's bound for superstardom to say he was worth keeping.

As I mentioned earlier, I think we were a better team, both now and in the long run, and probably had just as much and possibly more flexibility if he were here.

To me, that makes him worth keeping, even if he's not the second coming.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> Was it nothing? The odds are that Dikembe will be turned into some form of 2 guard, probably a decent one, and FW is thought to have some potential as an NBA role player. Harrington and JYD are washes, except that the contracts we got back are much better.
> ...


Its my opinion that the mood is overly pessimistic. I think good pieces have been added. Ironically, its the least of the 3 talked about new editions, Deng, that will probably be the best. I believe Curry is what he is, a gifted offensive center who wont bring much to the club and that Chandler will eventually be the better player. While I would have liked to see the Bulls add atleast one piece that they could use in the Crawford trade, I do think it gives them flexibility. But if Mutombo turns into just Pike, then Ill jump on Pax for that. However, Pax is doing a good job this offseason. The club will improve, however the playoffs are a long shot. 

As for Jamal, I do think it turned into a fiasco. mostly caused by Goodwins insistence to only deal with NY. But I checked in saw Bulls.com 2 days before JC was gone. And the official Bulls site had a link saying check in for news on Jamals trade. That, no matter how you slice it, was a little rude. what if the trade didnt go through? It wasnt handled very professionally. All parties were guilty of that. 

Lets be real about the club. 32 wins or so would be very nice for this club. And I am happy with the direction of the club. But lets not blindly pat Pax on the back (as alot of us do) because it hasnt been a flawless summer. Anyone who would claim that is just a blind follower. But its been a step in the right direction. But itll be interesting to see how long before Pax and Skiles realize the Gordon Hinrich backcourt is a defensive sieve and that one of them ultimately has to go? That is the next question I feel that will need to be answered. But the 3 spot has been taken care of and the club does have flexible contracts to put together something later in the summer or year. All in all, Pax gets a B. Maybe a B+


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> But lets give him a fair shake. And be consistent in regards to what he brought to the club, relative to his teammates.


I think I have. I think he's a talented kid with his share of deficiencies, like just about everybody else on the roster (NBDL excluded). 

I tend to agree with the notion that Jamal not only preferred to be heading to NY but, will readily accept his "situation" there while he wouldn't have here. With that said, I'm not sure where the successful argument for keeping Jamal lays.

I just think a good portion of the Jamal debate has always focused on the extremes. The louder the call from the haters the louder the call from the lovers. He's gone now and all we need to know is that this dynamic still hasn't changed.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I think I have. I think he's a talented kid with his share of deficiencies, like just about everybody else on the roster (NBDL excluded).
> ...


If he is a soft bum who didnt play well, and didnt work hard, then what did Kirk do to garner so much love? Thats where the mass inconsistency comes from. Statistically, they were very close and if you go outside the Bulls forum, most neutrals would take Jamal. yet here, because of rhetoric, and frankly, blind commentary, we have turned a hard working super talented kid, who didnt have one thing handed to him in Chicago into a "streetballer" with "no work ethic" who "didnt play well". Its not you who is inconsistent, per se. But alot of people. I also dont believe a Ben Gordon, as a rookie, will be better then Jamal next year.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Its my opinion that the mood is overly pessimistic. I think good pieces have been added. Ironically, its the least of the 3 talked about new editions, Deng, that will probably be the best. I believe Curry is what he is, a gifted offensive center who wont bring much to the club and that Chandler will eventually be the better player. While I would have liked to see the Bulls add atleast one piece that they could use in the Crawford trade, I do think it gives them flexibility. But if Mutombo turns into just Pike, then Ill jump on Pax for that. However, Pax is doing a good job this offseason. The club will improve, however the playoffs are a long shot.
> ...


I'm more than happy to be real. I am happy also that Paxson is dealing with reality, rather than the fantasy that JK was trying to feed us that all his picks were going to blow up and become superstars. He nearly turned this team into a psych ward, with Oakley as Nurse Ratchet (One flew over the cuckoo's nest). So, I was happy to see your initial post, and sorry about a lot of people who wanted to state a lot of preposterous things about what Pax wants or is doing. I can't imagine that anyone could give Pax better than a B, because the reality is 23-59 last year, with playoffs next year being very unlikely. But there is a plan, it is being executed, with some foresight and intelligence. That's a good thing. No? 

It is not "real" to say that Pax is blind because he didn't pay JC like Isaiah would. Pax had his reasons, and not just financial ones, for doing so. The organization is not perfect. But we need to wake up and realize just how off base Krause had been in his last few years. It's a testament to his Rasputin-like powers that he was able to pull along so many investors and so many fans for so long.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> If he is a soft bum who didnt play well, and didnt work hard, then what did Kirk do to garner so much love? Thats where the mass inconsistency comes from. Statistically, they were very close and if you go outside the Bulls forum, most neutrals would take Jamal. yet here, because of rhetoric, and frankly, blind commentary, we have turned a hard working super talented kid, who didnt have one thing handed to him in Chicago into a "streetballer" with "no work ethic" who "didnt play well". Its not you who is inconsistent, per se. But alot of people. <b>I also dont believe a Ben Gordon, as a rookie, will be better then Jamal next year. </b>


With all due respect, I think this will be where you will be proven wrong. It is highly possible that Gordon in his rookie year will surpass Jamal in his 5th year. 

But of course we can only know which of us to be proven to right at the end of this coming season .


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm more than happy to be real. I am happy also that Paxson is dealing with reality, rather than the fantasy that JK was trying to feed us that all his picks were going to blow up and become superstars. He nearly turned this team into a psych ward, with Oakley as Nurse Ratchet (One flew over the cuckoo's nest). So, I was happy to see your initial post, and sorry about a lot of people who wanted to state a lot of preposterous things about what Pax wants or is doing. I can't imagine that anyone could give Pax better than a B, because the reality is 23-59 last year, with playoffs next year being very unlikely. But there is a plan, it is being executed, with some foresight and intelligence. That's a good thing. No?
> ...


whats real is that this team isnt going to be in the playoffs. And what is real is that Pax is not flawless. And alot of people, are A) following blindly and B) not being real. That being said, the Bulls are improved and have more flexibility today financially then they had 10 days ago. Pax deserves kudos for that. But to say it was handled flawlessly, as many have insinuated is simply not real. Capiche?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> With all due respect, I think this will be where you will be proven wrong. It is highly possible that Gordon in his rookie year will surpass Jamal in his 5th year.
> 
> But of course we can only know which of us to be proven to right at the end of this coming season .


So you see Gordon averaging 17 ppg+, 5apg+ his rookie year? I think the odds are in my favor.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So you see Gordon averaging 17 ppg+, 5apg+ his rookie year? I think the odds are in my favor.


Simple answer is YES under one condition. If Gordon is allowed to be on the floor same amount of time as Jamal. With Gordon's better all-around offensive game, I don't see any reason why this is out of reach.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> whats real is that this team isnt going to be in the playoffs. And what is real is that Pax is not flawless. And alot of people, are A) following blindly and B) not being real. That being said, the Bulls are improved and have more flexibility today financially then they had 10 days ago. Pax deserves kudos for that. But to say it was handled flawlessly, as many have insinuated is simply not real. Capiche?


Capisco. 

Not flawlessly. But with a reasonable plan and even reasonable execution of the plan. 

Lord knows, someone might expect that Kerry will handle being President flawlessly...

There's a big difference between saying, Paxson should have handled the Eddy Curry weight situation differently, and saying, Paxson wants to get rid of Curry. Or saying, Paxson made a mistake in hiring Pippen, and Paxson wants to have a team of crippled mentors, "grinders" with no talent and slow, white point guards. 

Hyperbole can be fun, but yeesh....


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Simple answer is YES under one condition. If Gordon is allowed to be on the floor same amount of time as Jamal.


I hope your right. But the odds say no. The ball will need to be in his hands, and we all know how Skiles feels about other players (meaning non Kirk) touching the ball.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't get all the rhetoric on both sides.
> ...


Did I somehow get annointed leader of one of the two extremist sides and didn't know about it?  

I think you'll probably find me on record agreeing to some of your contract proposals. Not only would I have given him the approximately 45M offer in the Q neighborhood, I agreed with your proposals to offer him a roughly 3 year deal. 

That said, I don't have a player hangup with the Bulls. I've been a Bulls fan since I was a kid. The players come and go (moreso these days), but the team remains. If Jamal could have bought into what Paxson was selling and we could have agreed on a price, I would have been all for it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> Capisco.
> ...


But with a reasonable plan and even reasonable execution of the plan.

Isnt that what I have said about 20 times on this thread? Still, the inconsistencies are pretty laughable.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So you see Gordon averaging 17 ppg+, 5apg+ his rookie year? I think the odds are in my favor.


well, given that we added 2 REAL, LIVE, NBA caliber SFs to the roster and will hopefully have a healthier Chandler and somewhat in-shape Curry, I don't necessarily think Gordon has to surpass Crawford statistically to surpass him as a player/difference maker. If he scores 14-15ppg on less shots and a higher fg% and gets to the line, and plays passable defense (which I don't think he'll do as a rookie), it could be argued that Gordon is a better player. IMO he won't distinguish himself as a better player in year 1, but might do it as soon as year 2...or of course, Crawford could be the better player now and forever. Who knows.

I hope we parlay Deke and company into another real player (preferably a big 2, obviously). If we do, this trade does not look like a fiasco to me. If we don't, it's harder to defend the move.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> If he is a soft bum who didnt play well, and didnt work hard, then what did Kirk do to garner so much love? Thats where the mass inconsistency comes from. Statistically, they were very close and if you go outside the Bulls forum, most neutrals would take Jamal. yet here, because of rhetoric, and frankly, blind commentary, we have turned a hard working super talented kid, who didnt have one thing handed to him in Chicago into a "streetballer" with "no work ethic" who "didnt play well". Its not you who is inconsistent, per se. But alot of people. I also dont believe a Ben Gordon, as a rookie, will be better then Jamal next year.


Perhaps my opinion of a streetballer - a guy concerned more with the flashy junk and less concerned with team play doesn't cut if for the X-Box generation. If we're trying to sell Jamal as the ultimate team player now, I think thats gonna be a hard sell inside or outside of this forum. I don't question his work ethic and I even defended him as the sort of player who can make things look easy leading folks to believe he's not giving quite the same effort someone else whose more physical would (a second part of my defense). I actually bought into MikeDCs argument about Jamal's ability to play well given his circumstances.

Again, did I somehow get annointed to leader of the extremist side? Please refresh my memory with some of my posts. I must be in a parallel universe today.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

whats a reasonable trade for Mutombo? I dont know. Would seattle give us Flip? Do we want a smaller guard? Would Portland give us Derek Anderson? Piatkowski isnt enough, no where close.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Perhaps my opinion of a streetballer - a guy concerned more with the flashy junk and less concerned with team play doesn't cut if for the X-Box generation. If we're trying to sell Jamal as the ultimate team player now, I think thats gonna be a hard sell inside or outside of this forum. I don't question his work ethic and I even defended him as the sort of player who can make things look easy leading folks to believe he's not giving quite the same effort someone else whose more physical would (a second part of my defense). I actually bought into MikeDCs argument about Jamal's ability to play well given his circumstances.
> ...


For a guy who wasnt concerned about team play, he had a nice number of assists and a tremendous Asst to TO ratio during his time as a Bull. in fact, during the best stretch of his career, the last 30 games of the 02-03 season, he put on stats and a show that was the best stretch of basketball this club has seen in 6 years. That stretch, as a PG in a non triangle set, whcih he wasnt given a chance to do this year, was far better then what the current PG did. Streetballer or not, lets give Jamal credit for that.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

If it is under NBA rule, the 1st rond pick in 2006 is reasonable trade for Motumbo for me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> If it is under NBA rule, the 1st rond pick in 2006 is reasonable trade for Motumbo for me.


we need a first rounder next year. But any trade for Mutombo should be to recoup that pick. I 100% agree with that


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> But with a reasonable plan and even reasonable execution of the plan.
> ...


With some prompting...  

But the inconsistencies go both ways. People have inconsistent and unreasonable expectations that others will rate or value players AND management types the same way they do. There have been some wildly inconsistent evaluations of Pax and his plan to stock the Bulls with NBDLers which has led to an overly dour view of Bulls (as you pointed out), and there have been some extreme failures to recognize what JC could do as a basketball player, Fizer too. Would we be a better team if we could have gotten JC and Fizer and Erob on board? Yes. Are we going to suffer some because they didn't? Yes. Could Pax have done some things differently and better? yes. It is my opinion that he hasn't let his failures or mistakes make him lose focus or stop working toward his goal, and that goal is to produce a tough, competitive and winning basketball team. 

So, thanks for starting this discussion and thread, and for bringing to light some things that we can put our hope in, and some issues to look out for regarding future developments.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But to say it was handled flawlessly, as many have insinuated is simply not real. Capiche?


That seems to be in the eye of the beholder does it not? I believe I've read a good deal of the posts here and I don't seem to be drawing that same conclusion. Flawlessly, wow. Guess I gotta get off the Kool-aid IV i've been on because thats clearly gone right over me. 

What I have seen is a lot of posters accusing anyone who holds positive beliefs as a kool-aid drinker. I tend to counter that the accusers are in the sky is falling crowd. Personally, and it obviously isn't true of many who post here, I tend to be a glass half full kind of guy. I do notice the glass half empty guys tend to create the biggest stir though.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So you see Gordon averaging 17 ppg+, 5apg+ his rookie year? I think the odds are in my favor.


And it would be super if these two stats were the complete measure of a basketball player would it not?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> With some prompting...
> ...


prompting? Just a second, didnt I start this thread with a very positive piece on the Bulls? I think I initiated that the the crowd appears to be overly pessimistic. I think the club will be better then the average fan here. But still, the optimists can see that the plan wasnt executed perfectly. If anything, I serve as a moderate here.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> And it would be super if these two stats were the complete measure of a basketball player would it not?


or a great Asst to TO ratio, or a steal or 2 per game? To say Ben will be better then Jamal in his 4th year is to say he will be better then Kirk last year basically. And we know thats impossible since no one is better then Kirk.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I hope your right. But the odds say no. The ball will need to be in his hands, and we all know how Skiles feels about other players (meaning non Kirk) touching the ball.


On one hand you pine for credibility for Jamal's play in Chicago. On the other hand you continue to rip into Hinrich. Today you've referred to him as the messiah and before your absence you accused Skiles and Paxson of being racists. Excuse me RLucas, I've enjoyed your posts in the past but, if I fail to reconcile your current position.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> On one hand you pine for credibility for Jamal's play in Chicago. On the other hand you continue to rip into Hinrich. Today you've referred to him as the messiah and before your absence you accused Skiles and Paxson of being racists. Excuse me RLucas, I've enjoyed your posts in the past but, if I fail to reconcile your current position.


No, people rip Jamal and love Kirk. Yet, they call one guy hardworking and a success, when it was Jamal who had just as good a stats, and a near record at the Berto. Reconcile that. 

The fact is, read Skiles complement of Ben Gordon earlier this summer. He couldnt say one sentence of nice things about Ben, without giving Kirk a complement. Its called being the teachers pet. And its a blatant inconsistency. If Jamal was so bad, so was Kirk. If Kirk was so good, then Jamal is good as well. And do you honestly think Pax would have not given Kirk Jamal type money? Inconsistency again.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Did I somehow get annointed leader of one of the two extremist sides and didn't know about it?


Nope, just using your quote as a stepping off point 



> I think you'll probably find me on record agreeing to some of your contract proposals. Not only would I have given him the approximately 45M offer in the Q neighborhood, I agreed with your proposals to offer him a roughly 3 year deal.
> 
> That said, I don't have a player hangup with the Bulls. I've been a Bulls fan since I was a kid. The players come and go (moreso these days), but the team remains. If Jamal could have bought into what Paxson was selling and we could have agreed on a price, I would have been all for it.


I completely agree there. *I'm not hung on on losing Crawford because he was a favorite, I'm ticked because I think it makes us worse and actually makes us less flexible now and in the future (because now we don't have a tradeable young player like Jamal- any significant trade would have to come out of our "core group" and we wouldn't have anyone to step in there).*

Regarding his contract, it's worth pointing out that he really is getting the equivalent of a $45M deal. That is, *he's getting $45M over 6 years.* The difference is not an annual salary... it's just that Jamal is getting a 7th year whereas a guy like Q isn't.

So, you have to ask yourself... if you're willing to pay a just turned 30 (so likely in his prime) Jamal $9.4M in year 6 (as you would under a 6/$45M contract), why aren't you willing to pay him $10.1M in year 7 when he'd be 31 and so also still likely in his prime?

Either way, he's still a tradeable contract. Thus, I think that if the Bulls were truly willing to offer 6/$45 (they weren't), adding a 7th year shouldn't have been a big deal.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> or a great Asst to TO ratio, or a steal or 2 per game? To say Ben will be better then Jamal in his 4th year is to say he will be better then Kirk last year basically. And we know thats impossible since no one is better then Kirk.


Its as though you answer questions I haven't asked. Exactly why do you reply to me with statements I haven't made?

As for your first sentence, I would think someone of your "standing" above all people would be able to look beyond the stats. I'm sure if I were to cite two stats about Hinrich since you appear to have a hangup about him today, you could quickly dismiss those as I could the two you cite. But as I've seen today, whats the point of addressing your questions since you don't mine?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Nope, just using your quote as a stepping off point


Seems to be a good bit of that today.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Its as though you answer questions I haven't asked. Exactly why do you reply to me with statements I haven't made?
> ...


It appears to me its you who is drenched in inconsistencies. First off, your post said as though those arent the only stats that matter. Well, jeez, I gave you 2 more. 2 more that show he was a team player, not the Xbox generation streetballer that you and some others have insinuated that he was here. The point is, I could post Jamal and Kirks stats here. One guy is a God, the other a bum. And there is no discernable difference in the stats. Thats an inconsistency.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Seems to be a good bit of that today.


Well, you were throwing out the "Jamal's not going to be a superstar" line, which seems entirely irrelevant to me


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> No, people rip Jamal and love Kirk. Yet, they call one guy hardworking and a success, when it was Jamal who had just as good a stats, and a near record at the Berto. Reconcile that.
> ...


I suppose my argument with you would be the need to tear down Hinrich in order to bolster Jamal. Now this post is more of what I expect from you. You state the case and I agree with what you've said. Perhaps its just your frustration?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> prompting? Just a second, didnt I start this thread with a very positive piece on the Bulls? I think I initiated that the the crowd appears to be overly pessimistic. I think the club will be better then the average fan here. But still, the optimists can see that the plan wasnt executed perfectly. If anything, I serve as a moderate here.


You do. 

And I was trying my best to get your moderate message out after the thread took a decidedly dour turn. 

The prompting was in reference to having you restate your initial premise, which I liked and which I think people overlooked in their rush to vent their complaints about the imperfections. 

As I understand it, your thread wasn't designed to cover up the imperfections, but to give people pause before claiming that the imperfections mean that we're becoming the Clippers East.

Agreed?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> It appears to me its you who is drenched in inconsistencies.


Apparently it's regressed into a typical Jamal debate because I feel the same about you!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I suppose my argument with you would be the need to tear down Hinrich in order to bolster Jamal. Now this post is more of what I expect from you. You state the case and I agree with what you've said. Perhaps its just your frustration?


Read some of Shinkys stuff sometime. He, and others, lots of others, will tell you that Hinrich is the greatest thing since slice bread. They will also tell you Crawford is a bum. Then look at the stats. There is no discernable difference. Thats the contradiction. I am no fan of Jamal actually. I am no fan of Hinrich. a backcourt that wins 23 games doesnt deserve any praise. But if we are going to bash Jamal for being bad, lets spread the blame around some. And certainly Kirk isnt above that. But there does seem to be a clear double standard that exists from fans, mgt and the coaching staff. Read Skiles sometimes. Its sickening. I like what Pax has done this summer, thats the point of this thread. But if anything, I serve as consistent and moderate here. I have bashed Pax in the past and am giving credit now. If anything, I am being fair. Read some others and tell me if you think they are being fair or consistent.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Apparently it's regressed into a typical Jamal debate because I feel the same about you!


where is my inconsistency? Both players provided stats that were similar. Did I call Jamal a God or an untouchable? No. You called him a streetballer and insinuated he wasnt about the team or didnt work hard. Well I guess you feel the same about Kirk?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, you were throwing out the "Jamal's not going to be a superstar" line, which seems entirely irrelevant to me


It's usually not like you to misquote someone, but here it is for clarity. 



> Theres really no point getting into it. If you want to believe Crawford is this mega talent whose gonna go to NY and "blow up" as a superstar, that is certainly your prerogative. As for me, I'll continue to go by the opinion Bulls management and most of the media has of him since it seems closest to what I think. A talented kid with some real deficiencies.


And out of this entire thread, I'm the first to suggest something deemed irrelevant?

C'mon Mike. :laugh:

I have to go now. If everyone could continue to reply to my posts implying I've said something I have not, I'll get back to you all later.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: It's not about JC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> You do.
> ...


agreed


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> It's usually not like you to misquote someone, but here it is for clarity.


How did I misquote you?

I'm going to paraphrase again so you can tell me where I'm getting it wrong...

You line of thought was, essentially, that you think Jamal is a good player with flaws but not a superstar.

My response was to say it was irrelevant that Jamal's not going to be a superstar (it's enough that he is a good player with flaws).

I didn't think that was a contraversial point, so I guess I worded it wrong


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Simple answer is YES under one condition. If Gordon is allowed to be on the floor same amount of time as Jamal. With Gordon's better all-around offensive game, I don't see any reason why this is out of reach.


What is your projected FG% for Gordon?

Who will have a better assist to TO ratio... Jamal from last year or Gordon this season?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> What is your projected FG% for Gordon?
> ...


Who is more likely to get in a tiff with his coach?

Who is more likely to be a better player when they are 25?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> How did I misquote you?
> ...


Mike, If I can paraphrase a bit. i believe NVNE then called Jamal a streetballer for the Xbox generation that doesnt know how to make anyone better. I think a comment like that might just mean that he doesnt think Jamal was even a good player with flaws, that sure sounds like he think Jamal plainly suxs to me. Regardless, I dont believe you worded anything wrong.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Who is more likely to get in a tiff with his coach?


Who is more likely to beat up his girlfriend?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Who is more likely to get in a tiff with his coach?


I expect neither to get into any major trouble with their respective teams.

Care to answer the FG% or Assist/TO question?

Jamal does not have a history of major incidents.... neither does Gordon as far as I'm aware, but I don't follow college ball so correct me if I'm wrong.

Didn't Gordon already get benched or suspended or something like that for being late?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Who is more likely to beat up his girlfriend?


Who has more NCAA violations?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Who has more NCAA violations?


Who spent a night in jail?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Who is more likely to have his coach say that, this year, he is going to have to play hard all of the time, not just some of the time?  

Who is more likely to use their lack of HS experiance as an excuse?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Who is more likely to have his coach say that, this year, he is going to have to play hard all of the time, not just some of the time?
> 
> Who is more likely to use their lack of HS experiance as an excuse?


I'd say that would be even.

Pax and Skiles have an interest in making Gordon look good... he is "their guy."

I don't expect bad things coming out of NY about Jamal. Do you?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I don't expect bad things coming out of NY about Jamal. Do you?


Someone posted that Wilkens already said that about Jamal.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

OK - I was mostly just having fun.

I hope JC goes on to a very nice career with the Knicks. Except when he plays the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> OK - I was mostly just having fun.
> 
> I hope JC goes on to a very nice career with the Knicks. Except when he plays the Bulls.



I don't think you have much to worry about that. Except that I expect that he will torch the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I don't think you have much to worry about that. Except that I expect that he will torch the Bulls.


He usually torches teams about 8 games a year. Do you think that he will take Pierce's Celts off the list for a game or two to add the Bulls?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Who is more likely to beat up his girlfriend?


I can't believe anybody can go this low, even with smile face right next to it.

Then again Jamal debate always tend to bring the bad side in us from most posters.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> I can't believe anybody can go this low, even with smile face right next to it.


I can believe he can go that low. He takes me to task for saying the guys a streetballer when I defined what that meant to me but he doesn't have the mettle to stand up to his accusations of racism by Paxson and Skiles and he refers to Hinrich in a derogatory manner as the messiah. Yeah, a lot lower IMO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You boys be careful, someone's gonna get hurt  

I dunno what's worse? Racism, wild exaggerations, smacking around women... I could live without all of that stuff.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Seriously, STOP this. Lets talk bball and not even start this kinds of discussions.

david


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i'm not gordon's biggest fan but the woman beating thing was taken out of context as is most things on this thread the last couple of pages, she attacked him he fended her off, not hard enough apparently to garner an assault charge so if the conn. leagal sys. thought it was inconsequential i am going to take their word for it that he was put in a position where he had no choice, although you would think someone who is supposedly as pyhsically gifted as gordon could have fended her off in a better way.

for instance everyone's fav. hothead(artest) when put in a similar situation walked away and called the cops...for which he did get a bit of mocking for on another board on this site , although on the bulls board i believe people were for the most part pretty adult about it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Wasnt Gordon benched in summer league for missing or being late to practice already?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I can believe he can go that low. He takes me to task for saying the guys a streetballer when I defined what that meant to me but he doesn't have the mettle to stand up to his accusations of racism by Paxson and Skiles and he refers to Hinrich in a derogatory manner as the messiah. Yeah, a lot lower IMO.


I take you to task for absolute blind following and contradictions. Its been plainly proven on this thread


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Ahhh Jamal Crawford.

The 54 million dollar, no D playing , No lane penetrating, Too "shoosty" kid.

Even saying that Jamal had a better season than Kirk is assanine. Unless you enjoy the kind of one dimensional game that JC played.

Sorry, but I expect more from my starting guard. And it isn't just about scoring points, which he struggled to do that as well. It's all about effort with me. That's it. Jamal COULD play D better and drive to the hole alot more, but he didn't. Why? Your shot not falling? Get to the damn FT line and utilize that wonderful FT percentage you have!!! This very reason is why I question his heart, and his guts.

Re-read Pete Meyer's comments on Jamal. He is dead on when he says that perhaps Jamal got some bad advice from people around him, probably telling him that he has to score to get paid.

I think Pete was right on with that comment.

54 million dollars? You can have him NY. I wont miss him one bit.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Wow!

A lot has happened on this thread since my last post. Excellent points being brought up from a lot of angles. I guess I should apologize to *Mike!* now for not responding to his response sooner....



> "I was beginning to come around on Jamal because at the end of the year he seemed to be "getting it". Then comes summer and he begins speaking again. Good riddance, Jamal."
> 
> I guess I don't understand what he said that was so damning.


I don't know that it was any one thing. I guess my impression of Jamal is that he tends to blame everything on factors other than himself. Hints and implications more than outright quotes that tend to make it seem its his coach/team/GM who are holding him back. I thought he had had been changing that attitude at the end of the season, but it seems to be back in full force in the quotes he's had regarding the Knicks. 



> While I was also super frustrated with watching Jamal sometimes, I also don't think your interpretation of things is the only one.
> 
> Let me ask a question... what exactly was our "gameplan" last year? What other options were available to us, other than what Jamal did? I ask not just to argue the point on Jamal, but to lead us to question what will be different next year
> 
> I mean, to say that Jamal dominated the ball too much, and didn't pass enough, and took too many shots, there has to be some sort of recognized alternative to what he was doing on the court.


It's not the shooting that bothered me, it's the type of shots that he took. Hoisting shots before they were necessary when a better shot may have been available. Not playing within the context of the offense. Can I tell you what the offense is? Nope. But there seemed to be many times that the coach (Skiles, Cartwright, Floyd) was as frustrated with him as I was. This would imply they wanted something from him that he wasn't providing.

Did others on the team do the same thing? Sure! But the others seemed to also be willing to acknowledge their own errors and seem to be willing to improve on them. AD, Tyson, Eddy (at times), Kirk are all guys who are first to admit they are at fault in a loss. Jamal?



> So, why all the benchings? Well no one... not me at least, is saying Jamal was a superstar. Within the context of his too limited options, Jamal didn't always take the right shots. He didn't wait for teammates to get position (though in fairness, this is partly excusable to the fact that his teammates often failed entirely to do so). And his defense, especially for the first couple of months after the trade, was pretty woeful, although he certainly picked it up and improved. I'd actually argue that by the end of the season, Jamal rated out as an OK, although not quite average defender on oposing SGs. While that's nothing to write home about, it's both 1) marked improvement from where he started and 2) better than anything we're likely to start the year with.


I agree that he was improving at the end of the year. I thought he'd finally "figured it out", but everything I've seen since the season has ended has made me realize that he just did a much better job of keeping his complaints to himself.



> Further, if things go ideally for the Bulls, it will be hard to see them being able to buy a sweater like Jamal in 2006. Let's indulge in another flavor of Kool-aid for a second. If Curry and Chandler both play well and get offers (combined) something like $20M next summer, and we sign ANYONE (and I do mean anyone) of note between now and then (in two freaking years), or maybe even we like Frank Williams enough to give him the QO... then we don't have enough cap room to do much of anything with. That is, we might be able to make an MLE style offer to someone, but I think the dream of actually being under the cap by a fair amount more than that is sketchy at best.


You're right about cap-room, but it also appears that management is trying to make the "fiscally responsible" (cheap?) decision to stay under the Lux tax threshold. It appeared, for example, that the Nocioni/Crawdaddy situation was an either/or, not both. I guess it boils down to a question of whether you want to spend $45 million on a player you don't feel can get on the same page as the coach and manager. If you consider Jamal's role on the team as SG, he's easily replaced. If you consider his role as team leader/top scorer, then there are serious problems. I think Pax and Skiles (and certainly *Wynn!*) see Crawdaddy as a nice option as SG on a squad, but a horrible fit for team leader/top scorer. Crawdaddy, on the other hand, was beginning to look like he was unwilling to accept any other role. 



> Thus, while I think you've argued your point of view very well, and of course you could be right (and I hope you are), I'll remain a skeptic


A position I can respect. I've always been one of the cautiously optimistic on this board, and remain so today. I think I also tend to be a moderate who can see the strengths and weaknesses of each player on our roster (though don't we all!  ). My earlier post was just to put out there that some of us are not feeling dour at all, but rather are looking forward to rooting for this team. I like the idea of rooting for guys who accept responsibility for their own errors and attribute their successes to others.

Call me old school.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

RLucas, 

there's an old basketball joke that goes something like this:

Angry at being benched, Kirk Hinrich went to the locker room and came back to the bench with a pistol and opened fire at the coach, emptying the gun. He went 0-for-6.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> RLucas,
> 
> there's an old basketball joke that goes something like this:
> ...


I believe a funnier version was after Bob Thomas missed a game winning field goal years ago against the Vikings. The reports say Thomas was so distraught after the game that he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

He missed. Wide left.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I take you to task for absolute blind following and contradictions. Its been plainly proven on this thread


Sorry, but if you back up and look, I actually saw your pov and agreed with it to some degree. However, blindly following is not in my nature.

As for the rest of it I'm not sure what you feel you've proven to me, but I assure you I must have missed it.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> In the process, Pax also picked up a nice t-shirt (FWilliams), some boxer shorts (Harrington), and a comfortable pair of house slippers (Mutombo). Certainly better than losing Jamal for nothing.


These should be their new nicknames!

Deke "Slippers" Mutombo


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Wow!
> 
> A lot has happened on this thread since my last post. Excellent points being brought up from a lot of angles. I guess I should apologize to *Mike!* now for not responding to his response sooner....
> ...


You go, Wynn!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, but if you back up and look, I actually saw your pov and agreed with it to some degree. However, blindly following is not in my nature.
> ...


I think RLucas has made a terrific point, though it is lost in the noise that comes with petty bickering.

Hinrich was annointed by our two white former PGs at GM and Coach as the starting PG. We traded away or benched or moved to a different position anyone who could legitimately challenge him for the job or even take any of his minutes. To his credit, his minutes played, 3Pt %, assists, and points were good for a rookie. To his detriment, his FG%, ability to elevate his teammates' games, and the team's record were terrible. He gets credit for being a better defender than he actually is because it's been so long since we've seen even a fundamentally sound defender on this team that we don't recognize that for just what it is.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I think RLucas has made a terrific point, though it is lost in the noise that comes with petty bickering.
> ...


You don't get to play this game. 

Somebody (Lusty?) has a signature with Paxson's quote regarding Hinrich as a complementary player who will one day be a starter. Paxson did not anoint Hinrich as starter. Hinrich won it and JC lost it. It was a team effort!

It was Cartwright who first made the outlandish comment that Hinrich was going to be like Stockton. And BC said, "we're going to miss Hinrich and need him to come back" when he was out with the flu or whatever at the start of the season. So don't forget the tall, black center in your discussion of how Hinrich became the starting point guard.

There might be some overappreciation of Hinrich, as some one said earlier, but this angle that you're developing here just isn't right or factual.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I think RLucas has made a terrific point, though it is lost in the noise that comes with petty bickering.
> ...


Rlucas ducked and ran after he made this point.

Are people really ignorant enough to believe this or do they just want to be controvesial?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> If he is a soft bum who didnt play well, and didnt work hard, then what did Kirk do to garner so much love? Thats where the mass inconsistency comes from. Statistically, they were very close and if you go outside the Bulls forum, most neutrals would take Jamal. yet here, because of rhetoric, and frankly, blind commentary, we have turned a hard working super talented kid, who didnt have one thing handed to him in Chicago into a "streetballer" with "no work ethic" who "didnt play well". Its not you who is inconsistent, per se. But alot of people. I also dont believe a Ben Gordon, as a rookie, will be better then Jamal next year.


Hinrich got so much love because he exceeded the rookie expectations, and had LeBron, Carmello, or Wade been in the draft, then he would have been fighting with Bosh for ROY. This draft class really overachieved in its first year in the league.

That said, even though they had similar production throughout the season, Crawford definately has more skills and potential to be great, yet an unproven rookie with less skills put up the same numbers as Crawford. You can look at it from either side, and that's where the debate stems from.

Hinrich also did the little things that don't show up in the stat sheet. Hustle, pushing the ball up the court, playing D. I'm not saying that Jamal never did these things, but Hinrich came out and did these things every day. While they put up similar numbers, I say that Hinrich outplayed Jamal over the course of the season.

That said, I definately think that Jamal will turn out better than Hinrich, but why keep someone who is unhappy here. His points can be replaced (unless we shoot under 39% as a team). His playmaking will be missed, but his D and regularly poor shot selection won't be missed.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

:twave:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Gotta love that Jamal Crawford  

In NY with his 56 million and can still pull a double digit thread on the Bulls board .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Wow!
> 
> A lot has happened on this thread since my last post. Excellent points being brought up from a lot of angles. I guess I should apologize to *Mike!* now for not responding to his response sooner....


No problem... at this point I'm hesitent to even venture back into this thread



> I don't know that it was any one thing. I guess my impression of Jamal is that he tends to blame everything on factors other than himself. Hints and implications more than outright quotes that tend to make it seem its his coach/team/GM who are holding him back. I thought he had had been changing that attitude at the end of the season, but it seems to be back in full force in the quotes he's had regarding the Knicks.


Respectfully, I think you're trying hard to find something to take offense to  All the trade talk is business, and the stuff that came after, well, you can also take away "hints and implications" from stuff that came out of the Bulls org throughout Jamal's tenure here. From my perspective, neither side really crossed the line into saying stuff they couldn't take back, but they both should have shut up a little more than they did.

I guess I find your analysis here pretty one-sided. I mean, on one hand, you're angry with Jamal for "hints and implications" but not even direct quotes, but the Bulls (Pete Myers) directly said they thought Crawford was selfish and only out for the money. That's not exactly taking the high road. Nor was Pax's much publicized locker room chewing out of Jamal earlier in the year, or the numerous "hints and implications" dropped in quotes over the last season and a half that they weren't that high on Jamal.

I'm not trying to say Jamal is perfect, but being irritated at the things he said... when coming from that situation... seems a bit thin-skinned to me. Under the circumstances, I think most anything he could say, down to the slightest puff statement about being happy to join the Knicks and happy to have a GM that thinks he's worth a long-term contract could (and will) be interpreted as a hint he was "in it for himself".

I guess under those circumstances, it just seems to me to be a pretty unfair set of criteria, since most any FA that switched teams could be accused of the same thing, and it ignores the historical (and present) "hints and implications" coming from the other side.

*I mean, let's boil it down to the essentials. The Bulls didn't think he was worth it, and obviously Jamal thinks he is, and so therefore can't help but to feel the Bulls didn't appreciate his talents. Given those inescapable facts, it seems inescapable to me that there will be "hints and implications" from both sides regarding the other... and there have been.*




> It's not the shooting that bothered me, it's the type of shots that he took. Hoisting shots before they were necessary when a better shot may have been available. Not playing within the context of the offense. Can I tell you what the offense is? Nope. But there seemed to be many times that the coach (Skiles, Cartwright, Floyd) was as frustrated with him as I was. This would imply they wanted something from him that he wasn't providing.


Well, I agree, but hell, I even saw a couple of Kirk benchings last year, and they love him. I mean, I'm not so much disputing what your saying as saying that the problem would be significantly mitigated by playing with better teammates who 1) know where to go, 2) create better opportunities, and 3) show the way themselves and whill get on a younger guy's back for denying them chances.



> Did others on the team do the same thing? Sure! But the others seemed to also be willing to acknowledge their own errors and seem to be willing to improve on them. AD, Tyson, Eddy (at times), Kirk are all guys who are first to admit they are at fault in a loss. Jamal?


Honestly, I don't see it... I think that's pretty selective. I'm not going to go comb up gotchyas at this point, but I'm pretty sure I remember Jamal taking responsibility for losses and saying he needed to improve and continue to work hard to get better. I also saw comments from other players that went largely unnoticed that would have, had they come from Jamal, created a firestorm. 

When I saw a quote from Jamal about the team struggling, I saw him saying I and we need to play better and come together. When he played well, he heaped praise for his good games on his teammates. 

In short, I think the vast majority of this is in the eye of the beholder, and the kind of thing that's fodder for discussion and fine-tooth combing when you're a fan of a 23 win team looking for answers.



> You're right about cap-room, but it also appears that management is trying to make the "fiscally responsible" (cheap?) decision to stay under the Lux tax threshold. It appeared, for example, that the Nocioni/Crawdaddy situation was an either/or, not both.


I'll settle for cheap.

Setting aside Dan's excellent work on the likelihood of the luxury tax being imposed this year, it appears to me that it would have been feasible for the Bulls to get under $59M this year (which I'm not positive about, but I think constitutes one estimate of the luxury tax threshold) even with paying Jamal his $5.8M starting salary. It would take a bit of creativity in shipping off Jefferies and perhaps negotiating a deal with Pippen, but it's nothing that seems at all unrealistic or fanciful to accomplish.

It'd difficult, perhaps to avoid next summer, depending on whether it's imposed and what kind of deals Curry and Chandler are looking at, but we'd also have AD and ERob's ending contracts to potentially work something there, in addition to other possibilities. At most, we're looking at a one year penalty (and probably not the full LT) in order to ride out the crummy deals we've tied up in bad players and get totally reset.



> I guess it boils down to a question of whether you want to spend $45 million on a player you don't feel can get on the same page as the coach and manager. If you consider Jamal's role on the team as SG, he's easily replaced. If you consider his role as team leader/top scorer, then there are serious problems. I think Pax and Skiles (and certainly *Wynn!*) see Crawdaddy as a nice option as SG on a squad, but a horrible fit for team leader/top scorer. Crawdaddy, on the other hand, was beginning to look like he was unwilling to accept any other role.


I dunno, I think that's too much of a leap to make about everyone's beliefs when there are so many other things out there that seem at issue with it. Too much room for spin on both sides. I mean, is it fair to assume Jamal wouldn't accept that role when he's maybe accepting fewer minutes on the knicks than he would here? Is it fair to assume a guaranteed 7th year would mean nothing to him? Is it fair to assume Pax liked Skiles and wanted him back when reputable sources have claimed they "hated" him, and when they made a significantly lower offer for him? Just seems a stretch to me.




> A position I can respect.


Likewise.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I think RLucas has made a terrific point, though it is lost in the noise that comes with petty bickering.


Perhaps you should tell him to stop his petty bickering so the point shines through.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't get to play this game.
> ...


Excellent post, but RLucas twice has ducked this issue. He's made the accusation of racism, but has not offered to defend it.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> :twave:


Still missing Arenas or are things more like before now?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should tell him to stop his petty bickering so the point shines through.


I do, from time to time.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Excellent post, but RLucas twice has ducked this issue. He's made the accusation of racism, but has not offered to defend it.


Hey, there is factual racism, and there is innuendo. 

I don't think the facts support a claim that Paxson or Skiles have an agenda to anoint a white point guard. It is reasonable to suspect, I suppose, because they are white, and were point guards who might have a predisposition to choose someone who plays the game the way they did. But, as I said, Cartwright was the one who really played up Hinrich from the beginning, and who benched Crawford in that NO game that got the ball rolling for the whole slew of changes that followed, good or bad.

I don't think the facts support the claim that Pax or Skiles have an agenda to fill our roster with NBDLers in order to save money, basketball be damned. 

I refer once again to the original premise of this thread, and say that there is a reasonable plan in place being reasonably well executed for the improvement of the Bulls. This premise flies in the face of those who would like to claim that Paxson could care less about winning basketball games, but only cares about saving money for greedy owners, or worse, that he only cares about building a white, working class team that white, working class Bulls fans will support through thick and thin. 

I just don't buy it. 

MikeDC. 

Your argument that it would be financially reasonable to hold on to JC at slightly above the MLE is pretty good. Your point as I understand it is that Pax flubbed this because of his "hate" for JC. Maybe you're right. It certainly seems that the amount of money difference between the two contracts (MLE vs. IT's 7yr 55mil contract) is not huge (well, not to JR and friends, anyway). I couldn't say what this difference means to the whole team salary structure. But I think that it is not safe to take Sam Smith's words of "hate", which connotes an animal emotion that blinds reason, and apply that to what Pax describes as an assessment of how JC could fit on the Bulls as part of a three guard rotation. He didn't like JC's game as the number one guard for the Bulls, and didn't want to pay that kind of money to JC. Should he have? That's a judgment call. But it was based on basketball and money criteria, as I see it. That's an important distinction, I think. I think the word "hate" insinuates that Pax has blinders on, and gives free reign to those who would accuse him of worse things. 

Some people do have blinders on regarding JC or KH. I don't think Paxson's actions indicate that he does. Or, if he does, then he's joined by BJ, who said, "We're looking to build a team around Kirk and his style of play...." (Mizenkay quoted this from one of the talk shows), and so on. They are making basketball decisions, framed by financial restraints. 

I think it is better if we work under that assumption, for the sake of respectful and intelligent conversation.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich got so much love because he exceeded the rookie expectations, and had LeBron, Carmello, or Wade been in the draft, then he would have been fighting with Bosh for ROY. This draft class really overachieved in its first year in the league.


So basically, if there hadn't been any rookies better than Kirk, then Kirk would have been the ROY. That's true, although I don't see what your point is.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> So basically, if there hadn't been any rookies better than Kirk, then Kirk would have been the ROY. That's true, although I don't see what your point is.


That's what I said about Keith Booth and no one took me seriously. :no:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> So basically, if there hadn't been any rookies better than Kirk, then Kirk would have been the ROY. That's true, although I don't see what your point is.


My point is, that in most other years, Kirk would have been near the top in rookie production, and that this year it was a fluke that so many rookies were so productive.

I was using that as the base for my argument that as a rookie, Hinrich put the same numbers up as Jamal, but didn't want anyone trying to demerit my argument by saying that LeBron, Mello, and Wade were much better than Kirk, and that Kirk wasn't a top rookie in terms of his production.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

VincentVega has made the same argument before, that any other year, Kirk would have been one of the most productive rookies. Here's what I posted, when he made that argument.



> 2004 - over LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwyane Wade, no.
> 2003 - over Amare Stoudemire and Yao Ming, no.
> 2002 - Gasol would have won, Hinrich probably would've been second.
> 2001 - over Mike Miller, sure.
> ...


If you say that James, Anthony, and Wade make 2004 a fluke in terms of rookie production, you're going to have to call 2003, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, and 1992 flukes as well.

Kirk is a nice player, and I do think he'll have a better career than Jamal Crawford, but the problem I (and I think rlucas too) have is that a lot of fans on this board really overrate him. To say that most years he would have been near the top in rookie production, is to put him on the same level as the players I listed, and he didn't have nearly as good a rookie year as any of them.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> VincentVega has made the same argument before, that any other year, Kirk would have been one of the most productive rookies. Here's what I posted, when he made that argument.
> 
> 
> ...


My point wasn't about Kirk winning ROY, it was that he would be _in the running_ for ROY most other years. He was pretty much overlooked by the league this year because of LeBron, Carmello, and Wade having such outrageously successful years.

My point wasn't that had it been another year, Kirk would have won ROY. He was a top rookie in terms of production, and equalled Jamal's best season ('03-'04) in his first year in the league.

And this is why Kirk has been getting so much love, and Jamal was given so much hate. Jamal has the potential to be twice the player Hinrich is, and Hinrich stepped right in and showed how to give his maximum for his skill set and experience every night.

This was not intended to be Kirk should have won ROY but he was jipped because of his draft class.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> Hey, there is factual racism, and there is innuendo.
> 
> I don't think the facts support a claim that Paxson or Skiles have an agenda to anoint a white point guard. It is reasonable to suspect, I suppose, because they are white, and were point guards who might have a predisposition to choose someone who plays the game the way they did.


I don't think even that is reasonable to expect. 1st, Kirk is way more athletic, and to my mind not quite the hard-nosed guy that they were. 2nd, Paxson would have made a pretty odd racist to have just drafted 3 black dudes, 2 of whom are basically PGs.

That is, I agree...


> I just don't buy it.





> MikeDC.
> 
> Your argument that it would be financially reasonable to hold on to JC at slightly above the MLE is pretty good. Your point as I understand it is that Pax flubbed this because of his "hate" for JC. Maybe you're right. It certainly seems that the amount of money difference between the two contracts (MLE vs. IT's 7yr 55mil contract) is not huge (well, not to JR and friends, anyway). I couldn't say what this difference means to the whole team salary structure. But I think that it is not safe to take Sam Smith's words of "hate", which connotes an animal emotion that blinds reason, and apply that to what Pax describes as an assessment of how JC could fit on the Bulls as part of a three guard rotation. He didn't like JC's game as the number one guard for the Bulls, and didn't want to pay that kind of money to JC. Should he have? That's a judgment call. But it was based on basketball and money criteria, as I see it. That's an important distinction, I think. I think the word "hate" insinuates that Pax has blinders on, and gives free reign to those who would accuse him of worse things.
> 
> ...


I would say my assessment doesn't just rest on the "hate" thing. I think there are probably three main issues... one is that, while "hate" is probably a pretty strong word, I think Paxson has always approached Jamal with a bit of an edge that went a bit beyond pure basketball. Call it the difference between a kid who was a big-time jock in high school and a shy kid who was well... kind of a nerd. Maybe that's not it, but there's some kind of a culture clash there.

But that's only one part. Second, I think pure cheapness played some role in it. Certainly, they save some money out of this deal next year, and with a ready made excuse of "saving money for 06" to alleviate much need to try and improve the team.

And third, the Pax view of "flexibility" isn't per se incorrect, it's just a different one than I take. That is, I can clearly see how, in theory, it _could_ work. If just the right stars align correctly over the next two seasons, then the Bulls will have their young core of Curry, Chandler, Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Noicini and have the ability to add a max salary or near max salary player to it. It could be that we get a max player who is worth, in basketball terms, more than Crawford plus an MLE player, and is worth the additional on court losing we'll endure for the next two seasons.

I already explained my view on things, so I guess I won't rehash it except to say that I see more uncertainty and more potential for major screwups with Pax's choice.

So, in summary, I think there are three main reasons, all of which push you one way or the other. If 
* You "hate" a guy, 
* Put saving a questionable amount of money (since there's a good chance of no LT) above winning over the course of two seasons
* Would rather bet the farm on the stars aligning to give you a max player, you've got three factors pushing you to trade him for cap room.

Then these factors push you to make this kind of trade. It's a legitimate view of the "world" I guess, just one I don't agree with.

If you think 
* The guy is basically a good and talented kid but not a superstar, 
* You're willing to pay to keep young talent rather than let it walk, 
* You take (IMO) the more pragmatic view that there's plenty of flexibility to be found in having a tradeable young players and in general more assets rather than less, and you take the view that there's lots of uncertainty regarding what the Cap, the LT, player salary markets and the state of your roster will look like in two years,

Then you probably think maybe hanging on to Jamal would have been a decent move.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

dumb question, but who is who? 



> a kid who was a big-time jock in high school and a shy kid who was well... kind of a nerd


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> * You take (IMO) the more pragmatic view that there's plenty of flexibility to be found in having a tradeable young players


JC needs to pick it up or he will not have a positive trade value with his new contract. 

He didn't have much trade value on his old contract or he would have been out of here at the all-star break, IMHO.

At $55M, his name has come up on national lists of "What The Hell Was That GM Smoking???".

p.s. Therefore, I would call your view an "optimistic" view rather than a pragmatic one.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> JC needs to pick it up or he will not have a positive trade value with his new contract.
> ...


Look at his year-to-year improvement.

Last season he was the #74th most efficient player in the NBA.

What reason is there to believe that he won't keep improving?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at his year-to-year improvement.


IMHO, he needs to improve a heck of a lot quicker than he has to date if he is going to be worth that contract.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> What reason is there to believe that he won't keep improving?


You seem to really like Crawford. How good do you project him to be? Is he a PG? A SG?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at his year-to-year improvement.
> ...


74th? This is something to brag about?

Sorry, I dont ever see him being a quality defender. Or a player that lays it all on the line for the team. 

Of course, if you really enjoy the old bounce the ball off the backboard to yourself, then he is your man.

I'll take an old school player over Jamal anyday of the week.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> IMHO, he needs to improve a heck of a lot quicker than he has to date if he is going to be worth that contract.


Last season was his first chance to play consistent starting minutes, due to injuries and JWILL. So, I'd contend that he's not been given much of a chance. 

He earned his chance last season and had a better season than players like Chris Bosh, Manu, Q, Hinrich and Tony Parker. This was in his first season starting mind you.

If you compare him from his rookie year, when he clearly was not ready to be in the NBA, to last season, the improvement is marked. 

I still don't see your rationale for thinking he won't continue to improve over the next 3 years.

At an average of 8 mil a year, that places him at around the 60th highest paid player in the NBA. He was rated the 74th most efficient player in the league last season. So, maybe you can argue that he's slightly overpaid now. Assuming he improves over the next 3 years, he'll be underpaid at that point and a great bargain for the knicks.

Other players making around 8 mil: PJ Brown, Wally Szczerbiak, Jason Terry, Derek Anderson. 

Seems like the contract is far from outrageous.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> You seem to really like Crawford. How good do you project him to be? Is he a PG? A SG?





> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> 74th? This is something to brag about?
> ...


I think of him as a combo guard. He’s never going to be your Stockton-esqe point guard, but those type of players are few and far between in the NBA, and unnecessary for winning (Hamilton/Billups, Jordan/Harper, Bryant/Fischer). 

I don’t see any reason to believe that he won’t be a top 50 player in the league. The key for him is to improve his FG%. He’s one of the best blocking and stealing guards in the NBA already, but needs to improve his team defense. Once again, if you compare his rookie year to last season, he’s a vastly improved defender. He shows up to practice and keeps in shape during the off season. He’s never in trouble with the law. 

Its not that I “like” Crawford. I’d be equally upset if the Bulls traded Hinrich, Chandler or Curry for NOTHING. I think he’s a talented young player, with some holes in his game that can be improved, just like all of our players. If you measure him by production, he was the best player on the team last season.

I don’t understand what I consider to be an irrational dislike for the guy, enough to accept trading him for NOTHING. I think, like you said, many people don’t like his flashy style. I think people also don’t like that he shies away from contact, which leads to another area where he can improve…. Getting to the line. 

I think a segment of basketball viewing population despises the whole AND-1, hip-hop culture of many NBA players and would rather have their players conform to a NFL style militaristic team mindset. These types of fans gravitate towards the Skiles/Paxson mentality and admire players like Hinrich, who appears self-less and readily follows orders. He’s a good soldier. They also like college ball. Once the athletes become wealthy and have guaranteed contracts, like they do in the NBA, its difficult to control them, which frustrates these people.

I try to look past all that and measure him by what he accomplishes on the court.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> He was rated the 74th most efficient player in the league last season.


Do you have a link for this?

Dan R's list has him at 121.

http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/wv2t5.txt


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for this?
> ...


http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=eff&lg=n&yr=2003

BTW, Using that link you posted, I think its safe for me to say that I'm 67% sure that Jamal is the 65th best player in the NBA.


----------

