# here is another work ethic issue



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

In Mannheim Germany, Europes best 18 year olds are playing in the finals of their tournament. More then half of the leagues GMs are there. Our GM is in Deerfield. We can talk about work ethic all day but until our GM shows the willingness to scour the earth looking for every potential player, all we are is a bunch of pretenders. with the euroleague final 4 in 2 weeks, Paxson shouldnt be chatting with Mike McGraw, he should be in europe for the next 2 weeks. PERIOD


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Agreed. Theres no reason for the GM not to be there checking the players out. The Bulls could miss out on some tallent because they arent willing to go check it out.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*NBA TALENT*

I live in Germany and have been going to the tournament for the last 4 years. This years USA team is pretty sorry compared to the last ones. I was at the tournament last week to watch usa vs. Poland and Finland vs. Italy. From what i saw there is NO NBA type talent on any of the teams. There are however some very good kids who would bennifit greatly from a few years in D1 schools. Its pretty good compatition but not something I would neccecarily want our Bulls scouts spending thier time watching.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I havent looked at the rosters. But I read that Biedrinns, Petro, Jianlin, Aleksandrov, Bellini, and others are playing there. And if they are playing there, then its our GMs job to be there. These are the kids that our team will be looking at picking over the next 2 or 3 years. Even if there wasnt a big name player there, he should still be there. if over half the NBA GMs are there, its because they are doing their due diligence. There isnt thought to be alot of talent at Portsmouth either, but people go. You just never know what your going to find. But unless your not willing to work, how will we ever know? Its just pointing out that not only are our players not willing to go the extra mile, but our GM isnt either.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*link*

http://www.usastteam.com/ this is the link for the game rosters and stats.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: link*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> http://www.usastteam.com/ this is the link for the game rosters and stats.


It doesnt give me the rosters for the other teams. Do you have that? I would love to take a look. Just looking at the teams that are at this tournament, however, its fairly obvious its littered with NBA prospects. Maybe not on TEAM USA. But on the other teams there


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*nope*

Im telling you man. You would be dissapointed at this years crop of players. Now last tournament was NICE. Brandon Bowman who is now at Georgetown was playing, and Sofokalis who was drafted by the clippers was here too. This year noone really stood out to me unless they get a few years of college ball.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> Im telling you man. You would be dissapointed at this years crop of players. Now last tournament was NICE. Brandon Bowman who is now at Georgetown was playing, and Sofokalis who was drafted by the clippers was here too. This year noone really stood out to me unless they get a few years of college ball.


Yi Jianlian is there. And that guy is probably a top 3 pick next year. If more then half of the NBAs GMs are there, dont you think our GM should be there? Or do you think he should be in Deerfield talking to mcgraw?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: NBA TALENT*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> I live in Germany and have been going to the tournament for the last 4 years. This years USA team is pretty sorry compared to the last ones. I was at the tournament last week to watch usa vs. Poland and Finland vs. Italy. From what i saw there is NO NBA type talent on any of the teams. There are however some very good kids who would bennifit greatly from a few years in D1 schools. Its pretty good compatition but not something I would neccecarily want our Bulls scouts spending thier time watching.


Many thanks for your insights. With the impact international players have had and will continue to have on NBA basketball it's great to hear from someone who can provide these kinds of first hand observations. My knowledge of overseas players is woefully weak. So anytime I can read observations from someone who's actually seen these guys compete recently, I'm grateful. Thanks again, and please keep the reports coming.
:greatjob:


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Yi Jianlian is there. And that guy is probably a top 3 pick next year. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

As in the case of the recent HS all-star game, I would ask-- Paxson may not be present, but are any Bulls scouts? Pax cannot be everywhere-- he has a scouting staff for a reason.

I think you might be blowing the McGraw interview out of proportion, rlucas. That interview might have taken, what, 15 minutes or so out of John Paxson's day? 30 minutes tops. And the rest of the time there's plenty good he can be doing in Deerfield-- watching tape of players the Bulls will be much more likely to draft in this upcoming draft than any players in this tournament you're talking about, doing background checks on potential draftees, planning pre-draft visits, etc. From the sound of it, this tournament is a "fringe" tournament that is unlikely to yield any talent that would be in play in this upcoming draft. With the draft now 69 days away (gotta love the nbadraft.net countdown) I personally would rather our GM be concerning himself more with the talent that will be.

There's also end-of-season business to be taken care of (something that teams in the playoffs aren't facing at this particular juncture).

Just curious what the source is of your info that more than half of the leagues GM's are going to be at this tournament?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> 
> 
> > Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> ...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> As in the case of the recent HS all-star game, I would ask-- Paxson may not be present, but are any Bulls scouts? Pax cannot be everywhere-- he has a scouting staff for a reason.
> 
> I think you might be blowing the McGraw interview out of proportion, rlucas. That interview might have taken, what, 15 minutes or so out of John Paxson's day? 30 minutes tops. And the rest of the time there's plenty good he can be doing in Deerfield-- watching tape of players the Bulls will be much more likely to draft in this upcoming draft than any players in this tournament you're talking about, doing background checks on potential draftees, planning pre-draft visits, etc. From the sound of it, this tournament is a "fringe" tournament that is unlikely to yield any talent that would be in play in this upcoming draft. With the draft now 69 days away (gotta love the nbadraft.net countdown) I personally would rather our GM be concerning himself more with the talent that will be.
> ...


From Insider Knee

"Too early to start breaking down the draft?

Consider this:

While playoff fever grips NBA fans, half of the leagues scouts and GMs are in Mannheim Germany right now watching 18 and under Euros and internationals do their thing. In two weeks time, more executives will be making their way to Tel Aviv for the Euroleague final 4"

So again, take it for what its worth. But we can talk about work ethic all day. and we do. But let it be known that our upperstaff really doesnt put the time in research that they ought too. With no major basketball tournaments this week or camps in the US, our GM should be looking at these kids, spend a week traveling to games, and then going to the euroleague final 4 the week after. We shouldnt even hear about pax for 2 weeks. While Krause was generally hated, you can see the difference between the 2. One guy is willing to talk to the press all day. The other guy was willing to go to Siberia to find a player.

Id also like to point out, looking at some of the countries represented, and reading the Insider article, that this tournament appears to have about 5-10 first round picks over the next 2 drafts.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Yi Jianlian is there. And that guy is probably a top 3 pick next year. If more then half of the NBAs GMs are there, dont you think our GM should be there? Or do you think he should be in Deerfield talking to mcgraw?


C'mon, rlucas, the kid's just 16 years old. This isn't the one and only time he'll be on display between now and when he becomes draft eligible. Though the reports on him are outstanding, watching him now isn't going to make the Bulls any better next season. Besides, I believe Dukan's on sight. I'd much rather have our GM focused on what it's going to take to get better _next year_ while delegating scouting assignments on down-the-road prospects to his staff. Paxson has plenty on his plate to take care of right here at home. His decision to address the team's more immediate needs right here at home vs. taking a trip overseas to watch some long range projects has absolutely nothing to do with laziness or a lack of work ethic on his part. But then, that's just my opinion. And you're entitled to yours.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*NBA gms*

I dont know about half the leagues gms at this thing but I do know that at the last one I was at in 2002 The Sacramento Kings Scout was there. I personally talked to him. Well more like asked a question and he aswered quickly and moved away but still he was there. But like I said, There was alot more talent at the last one. I have a friend here that was there when Jermaine Oneal played in it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> C'mon, rlucas, the kid's just 16 years old. This isn't the one and only time he'll be on display between now and when he becomes draft eligible. Though the reports on him are outstanding, watching him now isn't going to make the Bulls any better next season. Besides, I believe Dukan's on sight. I'd much rather have our GM focused on what it's going to take to get better _next year_ while delegating scouting assignments on down-the-road prospects to his staff. Paxson has plenty on his plate to take care of right here at home. His decision to address the team's more immediate needs right here at home vs. taking a trip overseas to watch some long range projects has absolutely nothing to do with laziness or a lack of work ethic on his part. But then, that's just my opinion. And you're entitled to yours.


Cmon Blizzy. For someone who takes shots at the players all day on work ethic, the standard must exist everywhere in the organization. If paxson had a plan then he wouldnt have to be doing year end stuff now, it be done so he can focus on this. Our season was finished months ago. and frankly, you dont know, and we dont know, if there is a player there who can help us next year. YOUR SPECULATING. And if we arent there to atleast look, how will we know. Our competition is there, why arent we? When the time comes to pick Jianlian in a year or 2, other teams will know his game better then us cause they put the time in now. again, your entitled to your opinion. But if I read your opinion right, your saying its ok for the GM to not go check out players and do his job, but its not ok for the players to take time off? 

As for Dukan. Does anyone trust this guy anymore? and why should they if they do? While we were taking stiffs like Bagaric, San Antonio was grabbing Ginobili. If Dukan were on my staff, Id ask him for an opinion on a player, then id do the exact opposite. he hasnt turned up anyone since Kukoc. and over that time, the better teams in the NBA have gotten rich overseas while we havent. His job rating has to be failing


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

RLucas...

You should have learned a long time ago that Pax can do no wrong...

Why would Pax take the time and effort to go to Europe, when he doesn't take it to go to the McDonalds' game in Oklahoma City?

Maybe he'll see this tournament if it's on TV...


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

Im All for our scouts NOT LOOKING AT 16 YEAR OLD KIDS. Id rather have them scouting the NBDL or the Proffessional leagues overseas. Also they SHOULD be scouting to bring in someone to help us in the near future. Not some kid who doesnt even shave yet. I am sick and tired of 30 win seasons. I want at least a 500% ball cllub. Scouting 16 year olds isnt gonna get us that. And even then were going on potential. Whos to say that pax knows something that the other gms dont and while they are wasting thier time at this tournament he is scouting a gem in the draft?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> Im All for our scouts NOT LOOKING AT 16 YEAR OLD KIDS. Id rather have them scouting the NBDL or the Proffessional leagues overseas. Also they SHOULD be scouting to bring in someone to help us in the near future. Not some kid who doesnt even shave yet. I am sick and tired of 30 win seasons. I want at least a 500% ball cllub. Scouting 16 year olds isnt gonna get us that. And even then were going on potential. Whos to say that pax knows something that the other gms dont and while they are wasting thier time at this tournament he is scouting a gem in the draft?


You're limiting your thinking and a NBA GM can not do that...

It's your job to field a winner now and 5-10 years from now...

The kids you're talking about that can't shave could possibly be dominating the league in 5 years.

My question is, why NOT be a the tournament? 

I much rather have Pax watching Yi Jianlin live than wasting time looking at tapes of Desmond Penigar dominating the NBDL.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Cmon Blizzy. For someone who takes shots at the players all day on work ethic, the standard must exist everywhere in the organization. If paxson had a plan then he wouldnt have to be doing year end stuff now, it be done so he can focus on this. Our season was finished months ago. and frankly, you dont know, and we dont know, if there is a player there who can help us next year. YOUR SPECULATING. And if we arent there to atleast look, how will we know. Our competition is there, why arent we? When the time comes to pick Jianlian in a year or 2, other teams will know his game better then us cause they put the time in now. again, your entitled to your opinion. But if I read your opinion right, your saying its ok for the GM to not go check out players and do his job, but its not ok for the players to take time off?
> ...


:laugh: :yes: :laugh: You won't get an arguement out of me when it comes to Ivica Dukan's productivity! Having said that, who knows how much Krause ever really listened to him? As you've alluded to earlier, Krause loved to go on scouting junkets all the time. It's possible Krause and Dukan may have had differences on how they each evaluated certain players. All we know for sure is who the final decision rested with.

As for your other remarks, I don't think you can assume that just because Paxson didn't hop a plane to watch this tournament, he's got a poor work ethic. It's almost as though you want to paint a picture of him preferring 18 holes over scouting prospects. Tell you what I'd like to see him doing...evaluating free agent prospects that might be participating in the NBA playoffs starting tommorrow. Guys like Turkoglu, Ginobili, Swift, Kukoc, M. Daniels, etc. Or perhaps he'll turn his attention to guys he'd like to pusue with trades like Pierce, Jamison, Battier, Thomas, Sweetney, etc. My point is that there's plenty to do right here in the States. And if I had to choose whether to focus my attention on some young, long range projects or on potential free agent or trade acquisition type players who will be on display starting tomorrow, I think I'd be more drawn to evaluating potentially available veteran talent right here at home. 

What I think it really boils down to is priorities, not work ethic. As Kneepad said: _Pax cannot be everywhere-- he has a scouting staff for a reason._


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*Exactly*

I would love to see Battier here starting at sf.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: :yes: :laugh: You won't get an arguement out of me when it comes to Ivica Dukan's productivity! Having said that, who knows how much Krause ever really listened to him? As you've alluded to earlier, Krause loved to go on scouting junkets all the time. It's possible Krause and Dukan may have had differences on how they each evaluated certain players. All we know for sure is who the final decision rested with.
> ...


Point taken

But id like to point out that we are probably the most understaffed scouting service in the league. Even the Clips found a kid in Siberia before everyone else did, and that kid is Pavel Podkolzine, whom they discovered. Is it Paxs job to hire scouts? And why hasnt he?


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*who cares?!*

Ok so the Clips found him. Does that mean he is going to the Clippers? It doesnt make a difference who finds him. All that matters is who he gets drafted by. ANd Im sure that now that his name is out Pax has got a Bio and info on him as well as any other projected first rounder. Although we dont need a center anyways.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Point taken
> ...


It's because we have a cheap owner who cares more about baseball than basketball. When will MJ become the owner of this franchise?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: who cares?!*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> Ok so the Clips found him. Does that mean he is going to the Clippers? It doesnt make a difference who finds him. All that matters is who he gets drafted by. ANd Im sure that now that his name is out Pax has got a Bio and info on him as well as any other projected first rounder. Although we dont need a center anyways.


You don't get it...

A GM isn't going to risk a lotto pick on a guy he hasn't seen...you don't know how a guy really plays from his bio and other info and ultimately the opinion you're going to trust is yours.

That's the reason Pietrus is not a Bull.

It's one thing for a guy to not be available or you saw him and didn't like him, but there's no excuse for missing a good player because you didn't see him play.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Point taken
> ...


At this time of the year Pax probably has all the scouts he needs. There's Armstrong, Foreman and Dukan who scout all year long. And don't forget that like every other organization they've got their bird dogs (bushbeaters) all over the country and overseas. Now you can add Pete Myers, Mike Wilhelm, Bob Thorton, and Ron Adams to the mix. Is that an adequate amount of coverage? Probably when you consider that only 58 players are even good enough to be drafted. And lets not forget, that all roads eventually lead to the Chicago draft camp where draft values (eg Crawford) have been known to change radically over the span of a few days.

Truthfully, I don't think any of us are really qualified to judge whether the Bulls scouting department is sufficiently staffed. All I know is that quantity does not automatically translate into quality. I do think I can say with relative confidence that if Paxson felt he needed more scouts he'd hire them without being concerned about any budget restraints being imposed on him by ownership in general and Reinsdorf in particular.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> 
> 
> It's because we have a cheap owner who cares more about baseball than basketball.


I'm starting to get that feeling as well.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*nope*

The guys your talking about arnt guys we would have needed anyways. I for one am estatic that we drafted Kirk and not Pietrus. The kid gets his teamates involved and has great assist numbers. We dont need a center so why scout one. Scout the postitions we need now and if we have time scout for talent. But Im sure they have certain guys assigned to these responsibilitys. The whole point of this entire thread is that Pax cannot be at EVERY tournament in the world. I dont think it is a big deal if he happened to miss this one.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The Pietrus situation was bungled. No one can make an excuse for that. 

So, what people here are saying is that its ok to rely on other peoples scouting talents to obtain good players? Thats crazy. I remember the days when Krause would go anywhere to get a good look at a player. He found Oakley at tiny Virginia Union, Pippen at tiny Central Arkansas. He went out, found these kids and knew more about them then anyone else. and because of that, knew how much to trade to get these kids. So its ok for us to draft kids with our eyes closed on Chad Fords scouting reports? I dont think so. We are a lottery team for awhile. And while alot of work needs to be done on this draft, we ought to be seriously thinking about the 05 lottery as well. and the work for that starts now. That is what I would call hard work


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> The guys your talking about arnt guys we would have needed anyways. I for one am estatic that we drafted Kirk and not Pietrus. The kid gets his teamates involved and has great assist numbers. We dont need a center so why scout one. Scout the postitions we need now and if we have time scout for talent. But Im sure they have certain guys assigned to these responsibilitys. The whole point of this entire thread is that Pax cannot be at EVERY tournament in the world. I dont think it is a big deal if he happened to miss this one.


miss one? How about all of them, minus Portsmouth. That isnt a particularly good track record. How much time has Pax spent in Europe this year? a week. My gut tells me that San Antonio, Sacramento have spent more time in Africa then Pax has spent in Europe this year. We are talking about work ethic. And that means going anywhere, and everywhere, to find a player. And can anyone honestly say we do that?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> The guys your talking about arnt guys we would have needed anyways. I for one am estatic that we drafted Kirk and not Pietrus. The kid gets his teamates involved and has great assist numbers. We dont need a center so why scout one. Scout the postitions we need now and if we have time scout for talent. But Im sure they have certain guys assigned to these responsibilitys. The whole point of this entire thread is that Pax cannot be at EVERY tournament in the world. I dont think it is a big deal if he happened to miss this one.


He didn't see the McD's game (in person), but was live at the Portsmouth Tournament which has much less NBA talent.

How do you expect to win if our GM gets off on scouting lesser talent?

There's no reason to have more knowledge on Darius Rice than it is Johan Petro or Yi Jianlin, you're talking about the difference in potential top 10 NBA talents and a role player.

The top talents will get you to the promise land, not borderline NBA players.

There's a reason they are borderline NBA players and then there's the reasons teams have guys living in Europe, Africa, Asia looking for talent because it's there. The future for some of those franchises will be found there, not in the NBDL, and if we continue to be in love with marginal talent, we will continue to watch the playoffs from home every year.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> The Pietrus situation was bungled. No one can make an excuse for that.
> 
> So, what people here are saying is that its ok to rely on other peoples scouting talents to obtain good players? Thats crazy. I remember the days when Krause would go anywhere to get a good look at a player. He found Oakley at tiny Virginia Union, Pippen at tiny Central Arkansas. He went out, found these kids and knew more about them then anyone else. and because of that, knew how much to trade to get these kids. So its ok for us to draft kids with our eyes closed on Chad Fords scouting reports? I dont think so. We are a lottery team for awhile. And while alot of work needs to be done on this draft, we ought to be seriously thinking about the 05 lottery as well. and the work for that starts now. That is what I would call hard work


Sorry, rlucas, but you're mistaken about Pietrus. Truth is, the Bulls and John Paxson were very high on Pietrus (still are) despite what was publicized (I'm sure you know not to believe _everything_ you read). The Jay Williams accident changed the dynamic of the Bulls draft more than anyone will ever know (unless someday someone writes a book). Though Pax never saw him play in Europe before the draft, I can assure you he was sold on the young man based on BJ's assessment. Losing the previous year's overall #2 pick changed everything...and I mean _EVERYTHING_ in terms of what Paxson had planned.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*Well*

We'll see. If pax gets Okafor or a solid college player this year in the draft everyone will be talking about how great of a pick it was. Most likely we are gonna have the 1st or 2nd pick. The top 5-6 players are basically already known. We are not gonna find some player in europe or africa now to draft 1st or 2nd in this years draft.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, rlucas, but you're mistaken about Pietrus. Truth is, the Bulls and John Paxson were very high on Pietrus (still are) despite what was publicized (I'm sure you know not to believe _everything_ you read). The Jay Williams accident changed the dynamic of the Bulls draft more than anyone will ever know (unless someday someone writes a book). Though Pax never saw him play in Europe before the draft, I can assure you he was sold on the young man based on BJ's assessment. Losing the previous year's overall #2 pick changed everything...and I mean _EVERYTHING_ in terms of what Paxson had planned.


Blizzy..

I'm going to find it, it will take some time, but I will find it. There's a quote from Pax or an excerpt from an article that sheds the light on the Pietrus situation. 

Regardless of the Jay accident, we had a PG. We could have signed a FA like Damon Jones, and drafted Pietrus to learn from Pippen, some of us here get excited from Leapin' Linton staying after practice working with Linton, imagine Pietrus working with him?

That would have filled our hole at the 3 position, and that would not be an issue for the next 4 years.

As it is, we did find our future franchise PG, but we're not sure about our 2 position and we still have the hole at the 3.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Well*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> We'll see. If pax gets Okafor or a solid college player this year in the draft everyone will be talking about how great of a pick it was.


Come on...

A GREAT pick is stealing Johan Petro at #20.

A OBVIOUS pick is taking Okafor at #1.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Well*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> We'll see. If pax gets Okafor or a solid college player this year in the draft everyone will be talking about how great of a pick it was. Most likely we are gonna have the 1st or 2nd pick. The top 5-6 players are basically already known. We are not gonna find some player in europe or africa now to draft 1st or 2nd in this years draft.


While its more likely than not the Bulls will have the opportunity to draft a top 6 player, you can't discount the possibility of a draft day trade that may result in the Bulls making a selection (or selections) lower than #6. For that reason Paxson and his staff have to develop files on many prospects, not just the top half dozen or so.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Blizzy..
> ...


Obviously Blizzy is saying that Paxson just said that since he didn't see Pietrus live, that was the reason he didn't draft him as a reason, but wasn't the real reason.

Seem to me Paxson didn't think we had a PG. Paxson's PG was in hospital.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, rlucas, but you're mistaken about Pietrus. Truth is, the Bulls and John Paxson were very high on Pietrus (still are) despite what was publicized (I'm sure you know not to believe _everything_ you read). The Jay Williams accident changed the dynamic of the Bulls draft more than anyone will ever know (unless someday someone writes a book). Though Pax never saw him play in Europe before the draft, I can assure you he was sold on the young man based on BJ's assessment. Losing the previous year's overall #2 pick changed everything...and I mean _EVERYTHING_ in terms of what Paxson had planned.


I hope your right blizzy about pietrus. But I still believed his comments left alot of us befuddled and quite frankly shaking our heads. He had an opportunity to see Pietrus live atleast 2 times before Jay went down. One time, it was reported there was plane issues. The next day a report came out that said he was talking deal for Walker. I assume that was the real reason he didnt go. But I admit I assume that. The second time was some scheduling snafu. So he didnt go, but sent BJ and Myers after Jay was hurt. Thats key. It was after Jay was hurt. Why send them then? It was a waste of their time. Now, word from a credible source within the Bulls was that BJ and Myers were blown away by this kid. And Pax said he would TRUST BJ implicitly when he took the job. But he then said on draft day, "I cant draft a kid I have never seen before". Well. there you go. If you dont leave the Chicagoland metro area to watch any games, your talent pool to dip into drops big time. There can be no denying that. And with some of the worlds best 18 year olds playing this week in Germany, and some of the best HS players in the world playing in the McDonalds tournament 2 weeks ago, dont you think a hard working GM would be at both? I do. We can talk about the players. And you do. And I agree with you. But our GM hasnt distinguished himself as a hard worker either. He needs to set the tone. And he hasnt.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Blizzy..
> ...


I recall the statements you're referring to as well. But that's why I suggested that it might be wise not to believe _everything_ that you read. GM's set themselves up as deflectors all the time. Believe me, when it comes to management vs. the media, manipulation is a two-way street.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Well*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> While its more likely than not the Bulls will have the opportunity to draft a top 6 player, you can't discount the possibility of a draft day trade that may result in the Bulls making a selection (or selections) lower than #6. For that reason Paxson and his staff have to develop files on many prospects, not just the top half dozen or so.


i agree totally with this. And we need to do more. With 2 teams looking at 3 number ones (utah and boston), we ought to be talking about dealing down. While its crazy saying this, id rather pick 20 this year then 5. I mean, Johan Petro is talking about declaring and if he does, he probably goes around 14-20. He would be a great pick. have we done the work on him? I dont think so. Again, we can send Ivika to see a player. But Dukan stinks. And this whole mess about not drafting HS players is really beyond me


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Well*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> And this whole mess about not drafting HS players is really beyond me


Agreed...

If anything we should be getting younger...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Arenas, I know it runs counter to wisdom in the Bulls world, but I agree with you. 

I pretty much have written next year off. We just dont have talent. But to not look at HS kids or young kids is just way off. What I want to see is a young team who can get up and down the court and defend and be full of depth. If you look at Memphis for example, they went the youthful route for the most part and have the deepest team in the NBA. Id love to see a bench of Petro, Williams and McCants get after people. And we shouldnt be giving up on Curry and Chandler yet either. Get talent, then figure out the chemistry issues later. With all this talk of Vets, Id like to point out that no vet that we have brought in as helped us one iota over the last couple of years, save Donyell Marshall


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Defending Pax*

I'm not Pax's biggest fan at the moment but he has taken extra grief for the Pietras comments. Undeserved IMHO.

He said something to the effect of I decided not to go see Pietras b/c I determined that I could not draft him even if I saw one great game/practice. 

Now, this is very logical if Pietras was #8 on the Bulls draft board behind guys like Wade and Hinrich and maybe even Hayes.

But somehow, this got twisted to people thinking that Pax said he could not draft a guy he had never seen. And Pax certainly never said that.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*What?*

That has got to be the Dumbest statement I have ever heard on these boards! The Chicago Bulls need to get younger?!?! Lets see we have TC and EC who have yet to turn 22. Crawford is barley 23 and how old is Kirk? 22? We need a star veteren to lead this team. What the hell are highschoolers gonna do for us? Makes us better in the future? Everybody talks about building for the future. F that. Unless there is another Bron in the draft forget about highschool kids. There is a reason why we are called the baby bulls. Getting even younger only hurts us not helps us. When is the last time a team was even in the playoffs with a bunch of 20 year olds on the roster? And your talking about getting even younger??:laugh:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Defending Pax*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I'm not Pax's biggest fan at the moment but he has taken extra grief for the Pietras comments. Undeserved IMHO.
> 
> He said something to the effect of I decided not to go see Pietras b/c I determined that I could not draft him even if I saw one great game/practice.
> ...


Ultimately though you can't risk a lotto pick on a guy based off someone else's scouting reports, and that's all he had.

I also think though that going with a safe pick like Hinrich was of importance because that was his first draft.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> That has got to be the Dumbest statement I have ever heard on these boards! The Chicago Bulls need to get younger?!?! Lets see we have TC and EC who have yet to turn 22. Crawford is barley 23 and how old is Kirk? 22? We need a star veteren to lead this team. What the hell are highschoolers gonna do for us? Makes us better in the future? Everybody talks about building for the future. F that. Unless there is another Bron in the draft forget about highschool kids. There is a reason why we are called the baby bulls. Getting even younger only hurts us not helps us. When is the last time a team was even in the playoffs with a bunch of 20 year olds on the roster? And your talking about getting even younger??:laugh:


Well then I must be a idiot and will continue to be...

If it were up to me, I'd ship the #1 pick for all of Boston's picks...

I'd take Marvin Williams, Johan Petro, and someone else...

Their average age might be 18, 19, but who cares.

I'll basically have solidified my wing and post positions for the next 10 years.

I know that we're not going to be good this year or the next anyway so I'm going to load up to be a powerhouse for the next 10 years and build it for the next 2 seasons starting now.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> That has got to be the Dumbest statement I have ever heard on these boards! The Chicago Bulls need to get younger?!?! Lets see we have TC and EC who have yet to turn 22. Crawford is barley 23 and how old is Kirk? 22? We need a star veteren to lead this team. What the hell are highschoolers gonna do for us? Makes us better in the future? Everybody talks about building for the future. F that. Unless there is another Bron in the draft forget about highschool kids. There is a reason why we are called the baby bulls. Getting even younger only hurts us not helps us. When is the last time a team was even in the playoffs with a bunch of 20 year olds on the roster? And your talking about getting even younger??:laugh:


Your not going to get a star veteran without giving up Hinrich, Curry and the number one up. and that star is then going to have to play with alot of NBDL talent. So it wont work. Your more likely to find a star in the HS class then in a trade. Might not be on day one, but within 2-3 years. Call it dumb, but what I think it dumb is us thinking Boston will hand us over Paul Pierce for our garbage


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Your not going to get a star veteran without giving up Hinrich, Curry and the number one up. and that star is then going to have to play with alot of NBDL talent. So it wont work. Your more likely to find a star in the HS class then in a trade. Might not be on day one, but within 2-3 years. Call it dumb, but what I think it dumb is us thinking Boston will hand us over Paul Pierce for our garbage


Yep...

We need to face facts, the most probable way we get a TMac is by drafting one.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well then I must be a idiot and will continue to be...
> ...


Arenas, hypothetically speaking, how many games do you think a starting lineup comprised of the McDonald's Game all-tourney team win in the NBA next season? Or better yet, how about a starting lineup of Shawn Livingston, Ben Gordon, Josh Smith, Dwight Howard and Emica Okafor? And how many losses would they have to experience before they forgot what it feels like to win or before they forgot what it takes to win?

(Sorry, I hit the "submit" button before completing my post.) 
:angel:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Arenas, hypothetically speaking, how many games do you think a starting lineup comprised of the McDonald's Game all-tourney team win in the NBA next season? Or better yet, how about a starting lineup of Shawn Livingston, Ben Gordon,


next year, not much, 2 years, more then our team won this year. 3 years, competing for a title. But guess what, we arent going anywhere next year regardless. So why not? the plan isnt to build for next year, the plan is to compete for titles. and to think out a year ahead isnt going to do us much good now.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Arenas, hypothetically speaking, how many games do you think a starting lineup comprised of the McDonald's Game all-tourney team win in the NBA next season? Or better yet, how about a starting lineup of Shawn Livingston, Ben Gordon,


I never said those guys would be our starters...in fact I think that's the wrong way to develop them.

Anyway, give me a lineup and I'll tell you...

I will say they wouldn't be any worse than we were this year. If a group of teenagers can get us the same record that this bunch got us this year then I'd say we'd have something real to look forward to.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*Thats*

Exactly what im saying! What good is drafting those kids gonna do? If they are gonna be that good then we are gonna have to pay them some how. Whos to say that they dont turn out to just be average players. If we traded a 1st or 2nd pick down and drafted Marvin williams and some other 18 year old kids I would officially hate the bulls. That would be the worst move in the hisory of organized sports. If we draft those guys instead of guys like okafor then we will just go through another 23 win season. And why cant we be good next year? If we keep our same nucleas together with one more year of experiance and get okafor. Then trade Tyson and someone else for a proven Vet why couldnt we compete in the east?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> Exactly what im saying! What good is drafting those kids gonna do? If they are gonna be that good then we are gonna have to pay them some how. Whos to say that they dont turn out to just be average players. If we traded a 1st or 2nd pick down and drafted Marvin williams and some other 18 year old kids I would officially hate the bulls. That would be the worst move in the hisory of organized sports. If we draft those guys instead of guys like okafor then we will just go through another 23 win season. And why cant we be good next year? If we keep our same nucleas together with one more year of experiance and get okafor. Then trade Tyson and someone else for a proven Vet why couldnt we compete in the east?


Okafor alone doesn't make a team that needs at least 8 pieces better.

We might win 25-30 games next year.

BTW, that lineup Blizzy would be competing for a title in 3 years.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Okafor alone doesn't make a team that needs at least 8 pieces better.
> ...


Furthermore, let me add that if this team is in fact better next year it will be more from growth from within than the acquisition of a Okafor, or to lesser extent Deng (if he fact comes out).


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> Exactly what im saying! What good is drafting those kids gonna do? If they are gonna be that good then we are gonna have to pay them some how. Whos to say that they dont turn out to just be average players. If we traded a 1st or 2nd pick down and drafted Marvin williams and some other 18 year old kids I would officially hate the bulls. That would be the worst move in the hisory of organized sports. If we draft those guys instead of guys like okafor then we will just go through another 23 win season. And why cant we be good next year? If we keep our same nucleas together with one more year of experiance and get okafor. Then trade Tyson and someone else for a proven Vet why couldnt we compete in the east?


you make it sound so simple. it it were, how come we are 23-and whatever after winning 30 last year. Getting a "proven vet" is going to take either Curry or Kirk. We are probably going to lose our most tradable asset in JC. and Okafor while nice, plays a spot we dont need too much help at. And you expect that to be good next year? my guess is that we would be lucky to win 30 next year. We might as well get some young kids in here who can grow into frontline players. This draft doesnt have any Lebrons or carmellos, but its fully loaded with talent. And alot of that talent is sitting there between 10-20


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

How exactly would you pay all of those guys when they all are up for contract extensions? By the time they develouped we couldnt pay Craw Marvin EC TC Kirk all the money they could get elswhere. THis lineup next year will compete for a playoff birth.


EC
OKAFOR
sf
JAMAL
KIRK


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> How exactly would you pay all of those guys when they all are up for contract extensions? By the time they develouped we couldnt pay Craw Marvin EC TC Kirk all the money they could get elswhere. THis lineup next year will compete for a playoff birth.
> 
> 
> ...


Papa will pay because we'll be winning...

As it is now he's not going to pay to a losing team, especially after he sees next year's season ticket sales drop at least 30%.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*????*

What about the Salary cap?!?!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

haven't we already tried the "stock up on high school talent and wait 3 years for it to mature and then dominate" idea? I agree that we need to do something daring and dramatic to get headed upward again, but here we are with Chandler and Curry, after year 3, and all Curry dominates on a regular basis are Big Macs and Chandler loses fights against chairs and gets injured. 

If you guys think Pax and Skiles are so bad and responsible for such a ponderous amount of this team's trouble, what makes you think they'll groom 2 or 3 projects into dominant players at the same time? From the way some of us talk about them, you'd think it's more likely they'll be institutionalized from Skiles's reign of terror than winning NBA games.

Competing for a title in three years? :laugh: nice one arenas, I needed a good laugh.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Okafor alone doesn't make a team that needs at least 8 pieces better.
> ...


Are they that much more talented than the Bulls young nucleus for the past three seasons? Three high schoolers (Livingston, Smith and Howard) and two college players (Gordon and Okafor) win 25-30 games next year and compete for the NBA title two seasons after that? Really? What have any of those high schoolers accomplished to lead you to believe they'll prosper so quickly?

Take my advice and stay outta Vegas! :grinning:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Are they that much more talented than the Bulls young nucleus for the past three seasons? Three high schoolers (Livingston, Smith and Howard) and two college players (Gordon and Okafor) win 25-30 games next year and compete for the NBA title two seasons after that? Really?


Yep.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Are they that much more talented than the Bulls young nucleus for the past three seasons? Three high schoolers (Livingston, Smith and Howard) and two college players (Gordon and Okafor) win 25-30 games next year and compete for the NBA title two seasons after that? Really? What have any of those high schoolers accomplished to lead you to believe they'll prosper so quickly?
> ...


My question to everyone who bashes this idea is this: whats the alternative? 

I mean most of us are in some bong haze thinking we are going to get Tmac or Pierce for Chandler, JC (who you cant trade) and maybe our pick. Thats crazy. To get Pierce or Tmac is going to require Kirk, Curry and our pick. So Pierce and Tmac come to Chicago and play with no talent whatsoever. They didnt exactly carry bad teams on their back this year. So whats the point. Sure the HS route didnt work the first time around. But who is to say he wouldnt work again? Pax. but guess what, he basically isnt even trying to understand these HS kids at this point.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*THe*

The reason we won 23 after winning 30 is beacause tc was hurt all season and we traded technically our best players in Donyell and Jalen for trash. No matter what, Trading them to for JYD and AD was horrible. Donyell is better than those two put together. We really had no consistent scorer and skiles was constantly belittiling players left and right. Also horrible substitution patterns killed us.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep.


Uh..ok. Now, humor me a little longer and please respond to the question I posed to you in my post that you so effectively and surgically deleted when you quoted me: *What have any of those high schoolers accomplished to lead you to believe they'll prosper so quickly?*

I mean, there's got to be some logic behind your belief that a trio of Livingston, Smith and Howard will be challenging for an NBA title when they're barely 21 years old. Sure, Okafor and Gordon are good...but??? Curious minds (well, at least one) want to know.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I am very disturbed by this thread. I am sad that this board has come to this. Guys around here most of the time are great. What we have now is sickening. Not everyone of course but enough. I am out(at least for a little while). It is not worth the trouble. CB can you check your PM? I left you a message.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh..ok. Now, humor me a little longer and please respond to the question I posed to you in my post that you so effectively and surgically deleted when you quoted me: *What have any of those high schoolers accomplished to lead you to believe they'll prosper so quickly?*
> ...


Blizzy, the counter question is, what do you really know about these kids to assume that they wont be? This is a special HS class. Everyone agrees on that. Your boy Pax however has closed that option off to the club. Perhaps he just doesnt want to work on scouting these kids? I dont know. But to write off HS kids at this point is ludicrous. Even you have to agree with that


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: THe*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> The reason we won 23 after winning 30 is beacause tc was hurt all season and we traded technically our best players in Donyell and Jalen for trash. No matter what, Trading them to for JYD and AD was horrible. Donyell is better than those two put together. We really had no consistent scorer and skiles was constantly belittiling players left and right. Also horrible substitution patterns killed us.


This is about right IMO. But how many wins would a healthy TC have gotten us? 3 or 4 more is my guess


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*yes*

Yes but a healthy Rose and Marshall for 82 games would have had at least 40 w's.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: yes*



> Originally posted by <b>Unlimitedgame</b>!
> Yes but a healthy Rose and Marshall for 82 games would have had at least 40 w's.


Certainly high 30s. I agree with almost everything you say. But it sure does sound like criticisms of the mgt and coaching staff and dont you know you cant do that here?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Blizzy, the counter question is, what do you really know about these kids to assume that they wont be? This is a special HS class. Everyone agrees on that. Your boy Pax however has closed that option off to the club. Perhaps he just doesnt want to work on scouting these kids? I dont know. But to write off HS kids at this point is ludicrous. Even you have to agree with that


Rlucas, arenas, this is the _4th time_ in this thread that I've posed a question or quoted one of you only to get a reply from the other. Call me paranoid, but is this some kind of tag team effort or is something else entirely going on here?
:scatter:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> I am very disturbed by this thread. I am sad that this board has come to this. Guys around here most of the time are great. What we have now is sickening. Not everyone of course but enough. I am out(at least for a little while). It is not worth the trouble. CB can you check your PM? I left you a message.


Don't you dare leave Blink. No struggle, no progress. As the old adage goes..... keep your friends close and your enemies closer  Go Bulls.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

No one wants Bags to go. But jeez, if someone has a differing opinion then you, then whats the point? Blizzy and I are debating. Its civil. And good. What is so wrong with this thread bags?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas, arenas, this is the _4th time_ in this thread that I've posed a question or quoted one of you only to get a reply from the other. Call me paranoid, but is this some kind of tag team effort or is something else entirely going on here?
> :scatter:


Did you watch Wrestlemania 3 or something like that? It was the only time I ever watched it. There was a tag team match. 2 midgets plus King Kong Bundy vs 2 midgets plus Big John Stud. It was a classic. The point is Blizzy, on this board, your King Kong Bundy. The Biggest Bad *** we have here. And Arenas and I are the midgets. The only way we win is by joint effort on this one!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: yes*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Certainly high 30s. I agree with almost everything you say. But it sure does sound like criticisms of the mgt and coaching staff and dont you know you cant do that here?


oh you. you know as well as I do that there is just as much criticism of Pax as support on the board. and it's moving that way for Skiles too.

and if that team was good enough to win 30-40 games, why were they getting hammered by 30 at home twice a week?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: yes*



> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> oh you. you know as well as I do that there is just as much criticism of Pax as support on the board. and it's moving that way for Skiles too.
> ...


Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley Face

I dont know why they got off to a bad start. Rose was hurt. BC went away from the system that started the year. Chemistry issues. But I know we didnt get any better after the trade

Craziness of the week, while I wouldnt call myself Skiles biggest fan, I actually was feeling bad for him earlier this week. Oh well, I might be going counter crowd on him too


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: yes*



> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> oh you. you know as well as I do that there is just as much criticism of Pax as support on the board. and it's moving that way for Skiles too.
> ...


It didn't help having Rose playing with a broken hand and Marshall was getting like 25 MPG...

We were 4-7 and Pax had basically already decided BC was finished and Jalen needed to be traded, then we went out and lost 5 straight to the Kings, Mavericks, Spurs, Suns (w/ Marbury), and Lakers.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I just finished sparring with DaBullz on this premise in another thread, but I simply think it's revisionist history to say that the team that started the season was on its way anywhere but the crapper. We forget so quickly just how miserable that team was playing, and how massive of a disappointment it was to watch them lose by 30, at home, to the freakin Wizards. and then lose by 20-30 several more times for good measure to teams we thought we'd have our way with. 

I agree that the trade and the coaching change didn't make things any better, and hurt our long-term viability, but basketball-wise we hardly got worse than how we were playing to start THIS season, and things were just spiraling out of control. 

but I've said my piece about this already. It's in the other thread.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> No one wants Bags to go. But jeez, if someone has a differing opinion then you, then whats the point? Blizzy and I are debating. Its civil. And good. What is so wrong with this thread bags?


Agreed, Bags and I rarely agree, but I don't want him to leave...

This has been a very civil thread.

BTW Blizzy, I wasn't avoiding your question, just wasn't around, but I think this is a very special HS class, there's probably 5 all-pros going into the draft and another 5 that will probably be in there next year, like Rudy Gay (really like him).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I just finished sparring with DaBullz on this premise in another thread, but I simply think it's revisionist history to say that the team that started the season was on its way anywhere but the crapper. We forget so quickly just how miserable that team was playing, and how massive of a disappointment it was to watch them lose by 30, at home, to the freakin Wizards. and then lose by 20-30 several more times for good measure to teams we thought we'd have our way with.
> 
> I agree that the trade and the coaching change didn't make things any better, and hurt our long-term viability, but basketball-wise we hardly got worse than how we were playing to start THIS season, and things were just spiraling out of control.
> ...


We were worse after 9 games two seasons ago (30 win season) and about the same W/L at the time Cartwright was fired.

The spiraling out of control started with the rumors BC was going to be replaced!

Peace!


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> No one wants Bags to go. But jeez, if someone has a differing opinion then you, then whats the point? Blizzy and I are debating. Its civil. And good. What is so wrong with this thread bags?


So what is it? Am I debating you rlucas? Or am I debating arenas? Or...am I really debating Sybil??? I'm so confused! :drool: 

Anyhow, I think what Bags is alluding to is the ever increasing preponderence of threads, and posts within threads, that are initiated for the specific purpose of taking shot after shot at Skiles and/or Paxson. On another thread I believe there were a number of established and respected veteran posters who voiced similar feelings. One even went so far as to describe these kinds of attempts to denegrate Bulls management as an attempt to hijack the thread/board. I have to admit that I feel similarly. I think that the Paxson/Skiles dissenters have more than made their feelings very clear to the rest of us. IMHO, its reached a point of overkill. And again, speaking for myself, it takes a considerable amount of fun out of debating issues and sharing information on any Bulls related subject. I say this because somehow recently it seems that more often than not no matter what the subject matter may be, many threads are turned into Bulls management competency debates. And then there are the increasing number of threads that are started for the singular purpose of denegrating Paxson or Skiles. Lets be honest, shall we and admit that that was exactly why this thread was started: to challenge Paxson's work ethic, as though any of us are actually privy to his daily agenda.

Like Bags, I'd much rather talk about ways to make the Bulls a better team. I'd much rather debate who the better FA or draft choice might be. I'd much rather critique, compliment or criticize our players' on-court performances. And yes, I even enjoy debating the pros and cons of the performances of our management team...but not to the point where this board becomes dominated by it for long periods of time.

And that goes for the constantly derogotory threads and posts that zero in on the same player over and over. Ok, I'll be the first to admit that I'm very opinionated about Bulls related issues. And sometimes I'm sure I can come off as obstinate and officious. But I don't enjoy beating a dead horse. Or reading about the same one day after day.

I'm sure the legal daddy's of this board take great pride in what they've brought to the internet. Those that I've gotten to know are classy, fair-minded people. And I think like all daddys, they take great pride in seeing their offspring develop into the best of their kind in their particular arena. I think that perhaps out of repect for these guys and the wonderful platform they've provided all of us with to vent, pontificate and celebrate events surrounding the team we're so passionate about, maybe we all ought to treat this board, and each other, with a little more respect. Debate arising from varying points of view is what makes message boards great. Overkill of any subject never contributes or enhances a board's greatness, it diminishes it instead...and occasionally it drives away comrades in arms like Bags. Nothing that anyone has to say on this board is worth driving a fellow fan away from our community...nothing.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> So what is it? Am I debating you rlucas? Or am I debating arenas? Or...am I really debating Sybil??? I'm so confused! :drool:
> ...


I am glad that you said this to a degree. Atleast you admit that your as guilty, particularly with the pounding of certain players as some of us are in the pounding of mgt. 

At the end of the day, alot gets said on this board. And not everyone is going to share the same opinion. If Bags wants to leave over that, then that is his issue. He is a great guy who I converse with off the board. But I would tell him to his face that its a silly reason to leave a board

The original fact of this thread remains the same. And nothing anyone can say changes that. We have work ethic problems in this franchise. And as you have correctly stated, its the players. As I have correctly stated, our GM doesnt do the work necessary to bring in good players. There is just no 2 ways around it. Id go far as saying the only guy in this organization who puts the work in is Skiles. No, I am not a fan. But he seems like the type of guy whod be up at 4am watching tape. But I can tell you that as a son to 20 year season ticket holder, mgt as well as the players havent been impressive. And no amount of defending of them on anyones part changes that. 

Id also like to point out. That for every hate Skiles or Pax thread, there is about 5 threads bashing Erob or any other player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Id also like to point out. That for every hate Skiles or Pax thread, there is about 5 threads bashing Erob or any other player.


And for every post that bashes Jamal or Pax or Skiles, there's surely a poster who'll jump to their defense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd also point out that it wouldn't be much fun without the differing opinions.

We'd all be slapping eachother on our virtual backs, "yuk yuk, what a great team we are, and everything is going great" (or the reverse).


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> So what is it? Am I debating you rlucas? Or am I debating arenas? Or...am I really debating Sybil??? I'm so confused! :drool:
> ...


The way I see it is, I think anything should be allowed to be discussed and debated and the main thing is to try and keep things from getting personal.

That is what I feel could/should drive a person away from the board not differences in opinion. 

I'm not going to leave the board because someone doesn't agree with me that we should ship out a #1 pick for someone else's multiple first rd. picks, that's ridiculous.

In regards to some of the topics that keep coming up. Well, some of the "same" issues keep coming not because we just bring them up for the hell of it but because things happen and become discussion.

A couple weeks ago I made the Pax watched the McD's game at home thread after it was reported and today RL has pointed out another case similar to that, what is wrong with that?

There have a couple of ERob stories lately, I brought up 1, Blizzy another, and they have been discussed here because of reports from the paper or radio, what's wrong with that?

How are these posts/threads any different than the posters here who constantly start threads and post to bash Jamal Crawford?

I get a lot of flack here and yes I do live on the edge a little bit, but I do try to contribute more to the board than to take anything from it. Obviously I don't have anything personal invested in the Bulls, so contrary to what has been said by some, I'm not trying to push any opinion of mine on anyone, you have the right to have yours, but I have a right to have mine, and I actually try to intelligently articulate why I feel a certain way instead of just saying that's the way I feel and it's law.

Anyway I respect everyone and their opinion as long as they avoid the personal remarks.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

5 star post C Blizzy.

I'll have to admit as well that this sh*t is getting old. Same steaming pile of you-know-what day after day permeating thread after thread. I feel like there hasn't been a real basketball thread in weeks.

Its beyond the point of overkill folks. We're not even discussing basketball. Most of this board's notables aren't even posting much lately because of this. And for that its a shame. Just my opinion.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 5 star post C Blizzy.
> 
> I'll have to admit as well that this sh*t is getting old. Same steaming pile of you-know-what day after day permeating thread after thread. I feel like there hasn't been a real basketball thread in weeks.
> ...


i disagree but respectfully so. I think this board has been amazingly active for the season being over, and for us having such a bad year

If we are going to talk overkill, then lets talk about the Jamal vs Kirk thing, or the Erob thing, or the Chandler and Curry are a lazy bum thing. There have been 5x more posts related to that subject matter then Pax and Skiles. I dont like any of those threads either, but am I going to leave the board because of it? Nope. I will dig until I find something of interest. And there is plenty of it on this board because there are alot of good posters. And these good posters include Blizzy (who I never get along with, but still respect) and other Skiles and Pax fans like Fleet. Like Dabullz said, it wouldnt be much of a board if we all saw eye to eye. But as long as it never goes into personal territory, who cares really? I got a PM from an unnamed poster recently basically threatening me and calling me a bunch of names. Our mods took care of the problem. They do a good job. They will take care of the over stepping of the lines here. And people like myself will report or write threads about subject matters they feel are important to the Bulls. And the original subject matter is very important to me. Why hasnt the current mgt made the effort to broaden their scouting efforts beyond what seems to be the chicagoland metro area? How can we expect to be better when we dont scout a tournament that everyone is looking at? These are important questions. And frankly, I think as fans, we deserve answers. 

Dave, dont take this directed at you. we are mates. I just quoted you as a generality.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 5 star post C Blizzy.
> 
> I'll have to admit as well that this sh*t is getting old. Same steaming pile of you-know-what day after day permeating thread after thread. I feel like there hasn't been a real basketball thread in weeks.
> ...


overkill is right. agenda-pushing is hurting this board. I'm not going to name names or call out anyone but I long for fresh perspectives and changing opinions by the same people. We already heard you that you love/hate Jamal, trade/keep Chandler, get this guy for the draft, let this guy go...blah blah blah. Really, enough.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i disagree but respectfully so. I think this board has been amazingly active for the season being over, and for us having such a bad year
> ...


No offense taken rlucas. I agree with 100% of what you said, and yes it is pretty amazing that the Bulls are still being discussed passionately considering the sad state of affairs. And don't get me wrong, I believe this thread was validly started. Where I have an issue, in general, is the whole good-threads-go-bad issue. Some recent threads are started w/ good intentions but get spoiled by the vocal few who insist on spearheading the same agenda in thread after bloody thread. That gets old to me. Fast.

I'm all for disagreement and yes even conflict. That's what message boards are all about! Heck, I can even put up with some tasteful personal attacks from time to time b/c quite frankly it makes things more fun. I've dished out some in the past and received plenty in return. Its all good. 

:yes:


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*something in common*

Lets put the arguments aside for second. 3 cheers for us for being loyal Bulls fans through it all! We may not always agree, but we all want the same thing. A Bulls team that is a winner. So to my fellow bulls fans who have been here through the last 5 years, I salute you!!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> If we are going to talk overkill, then lets talk about the Jamal vs Kirk thing, or the Erob thing, or the Chandler and Curry are a lazy bum thing. There have been 5x more posts related to that subject matter then Pax and Skiles.


not lately, I don't think. Jamal is a hot topic due to pending free agency (and because Jamal is always a hot topic) and Curry/Chandler will always be topics for discussion while they're here, but the ratio as of the last couple weeks has definitely tipped strongly towards Pax/Skiles and debating ERob's plight. It's probably just a phase, but it is getting tedious.

And I think another point of this debate is that it feels like threads that aren't even intended to be about ERob or Pax/Skiles end up being turned in that direction by certain remarks. And though I don't have a problem with arenas, I think he has done this on a few occasions. It seems like he has a habit of responding to a thread that criticizes a player he likes by saying, "if you're going to criticize him, don't forget Pax and Skiles." he's not the only one who has made comments like that, but I have noticed it a couple times.

The thread wasn't about that until someone makes a comment like that, which typically baits someone (sometimes me, I admit) into replying in kind.

For my part, it's these sort of trends that I'm trying to avoid by exiting threads after I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself. Sometimes I post anyway, but I'm trying to limit it in the hope that we move onto different topics.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> not lately, I don't think. Jamal is a hot topic due to pending free agency (and because Jamal is always a hot topic) and Curry/Chandler will always be topics for discussion while they're here, but the ratio as of the last couple weeks has definitely tipped strongly towards Pax/Skiles and debating ERob's plight. It's probably just a phase, but it is getting tedious.
> ...


Understood. I would like to say in this thread, Ill be up front and wont beat around the bush. it makes me sick that we dont have the scouting dept too compete long term in the NBA. And we ignore events such as the one going on in Germany. i wanted to point it out. And I think its a legit discussion matter. Cause it effects the Bulls. With all the threads focusing on Erob and his lack of work ethic, I wanted to look at Paxs for a second. I think that is fair enough. And interestingly, the same people who bash erob come to Paxs defense. Now, I avoid the Bullhawk Jamal sucks threads. And I try to avoid the Erob threads. But there is a lot of good stuff on this board. If people dont want to talk about Skiles or pax, there is plenty of stuff for them to find. To just give up is kind of point less

Unlimited, I second your salute.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Understood. I would like to say in this thread, Ill be up front and wont beat around the bush. it makes me sick that we dont have the scouting dept too compete long term in the NBA. And we ignore events such as the one going on in Germany. i wanted to point it out. And I think its a legit discussion matter. Cause it effects the Bulls. With all the threads focusing on Erob and his lack of work ethic, I wanted to look at Paxs for a second. I think that is fair enough. And interestingly, the same people who bash erob come to Paxs defense. Now, I avoid the Bullhawk Jamal sucks threads. And I try to avoid the Erob threads. But there is a lot of good stuff on this board. If people dont want to talk about Skiles or pax, there is plenty of stuff for them to find. To just give up is kind of point less


Agreed on the scouting stuff. I'd like to know if anyone affiliated with the Bulls is at this event before I crucify Pax for it. It's a stark change to go from Krause, who was a GM who lived for scouting, to Pax. We don't know what Pax's MO is yet, but clearly he's not going to bend over backwards personally to scout every player possible. That doesn't mean he won't do a good job if he dispatches people to the right events and areas, because I think a lot of GMs probably stay in the office more if they have a dependable scouting staff fanning out to see prospects. From what I know of the Bulls' scouting (which isn't much), we're understaffed and that's a problem. But I think Blizzy has a point that we don't really know how hard Pax is working - there's more to being the GM than scouting, even though that should be a priority during this part of the year, for sure.

I also agree that leaving the board entirely is rash. It only takes a little self-restraint to skip over threads and posts that you don't want to be bothered with.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Just to chime in.

I don't think the problem is who loves/hates Pax, or any other kind of differing opinion, but rather, it really does seem like certain people are intent on pushing their own agenda, and try to redirect every thread to the same subject matter, and it does take away from the quality of the board.

Like others have said, I can recall quite a few threads that started out with highly intelligent, objective, friendly conversation, and eventually disintegrated into the same three or four people bickering over the same things, over, and over, and over again. And really, this board is to good for that. Everyone's opinions are fine, and they're certainly entitled to them, but when this pattern keeps on repeating itself, it makes the board a lot less enjoyable.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Fellow posters, please take a peak at TB's thread at the top of the board. Its good advice for us all.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well then I must be a idiot and will continue to be...
> ...


You said it, not anyone else 

The reason to care is not just that these guys are too young to be good, and even worse, putting together all of these young guys will form an environment that makes it impossible for them to learn to win. Either that, or we'll be so bad that management will be forced into more bad desperation trades before they realize their potential. In other words, this is about as poorly thought out a strategy as I can imagine. Even a casual look at the bulls history of the post MJ era should teach those lessons.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> My question to everyone who bashes this idea is this: whats the alternative?
> 
> I mean most of us are in some bong haze thinking we are going to get Tmac or Pierce for Chandler, JC (who you cant trade) and maybe our pick. Thats crazy. To get Pierce or Tmac is going to require Kirk, Curry and our pick. So Pierce and Tmac come to Chicago and play with no talent whatsoever. They didnt exactly carry bad teams on their back this year. So whats the point. Sure the HS route didnt work the first time around. But who is to say he wouldnt work again? Pax. but guess what, he basically isnt even trying to understand these HS kids at this point.



I don't see why getting one of those guys would take all three of our assets. If you look at what other teams can offer, something like Curry and our pick for TMac is probably as good as most other offers the Magic would get.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90117&forumid=2

shows what some fans of other teams are thinking on McGrady. I don't see anything that totally trumps what we could offer.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: nope*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> miss one? How about all of them, minus Portsmouth. That isnt a particularly good track record. How much time has Pax spent in Europe this year? a week. My gut tells me that San Antonio, Sacramento have spent more time in Africa then Pax has spent in Europe this year. We are talking about work ethic. And that means going anywhere, and everywhere, to find a player. And can anyone honestly say we do that?


Pax himself or the Bulls scouts?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Blizzy, the counter question is, what do you really know about these kids to assume that they wont be? This is a special HS class. Everyone agrees on that. Your boy Pax however has closed that option off to the club. Perhaps he just doesnt want to work on scouting these kids? I dont know. But to write off HS kids at this point is ludicrous. Even you have to agree with that


I agree they shouldn't be written off, but I don't see how they're "special". People always have to say the latest guys are the next big thing, but I don't see anyone in that class that's a Lebron or a Carmelo.

Dwight Howard is getting big time Kwame Brown comparisons. I like Kwame, but even if Howard is more Amare than Kwame I don't know that it makes this class "special". 

Last year's draft class was special. This one looks pretty average.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



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


I am willing to bet that Boston and Orlando would swap Tmac and Pierce before dealing with us. I dont see how the Bulls, or anyone, can expect a top 10 player without trading all 3 of the assets that this club has. But that is just my opinion. Since we cant offer cap space, we are going to have to give up talent, which we are in short supply of. If you look at what the Knicks gave up for Marbury for instance, then I think its safe to assume that we are out of the market for either unless we are willing to deal all 3.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet that Boston and Orlando would swap Tmac and Pierce before dealing with us. I dont see how the Bulls, or anyone, can expect a top 10 player without trading all 3 of the assets that this club has. But that is just my opinion. Since we cant offer cap space, we are going to have to give up talent, which we are in short supply of. If you look at what the Knicks gave up for Marbury for instance, then I think its safe to assume that we are out of the market for either unless we are willing to deal all 3.


Well, we've discussed that before and I disagree... so maybe we should avoid beating a dead horse . But I don't see how these are that unwanted where they are to just exchange problems. If the Celts trade, they'll look for frontcourt or PG help and let Davis and Welsch man the wings.

I also don't think you can establish consistent patterns for what top flight players will get. By the way, the Knicks appear to have gotten Marbury for what? An 18 year old Polish kid who got a reputation for dogging it, cap room and two mid-round 1sts? That's not exactly a premium. A mid-round first might get you a nice player or it might get you nothing. A top 3 1st like the Bulls would be giving up probably gets you a star or a top flight player.

Curry is one of the top young center prospects in the league.

Davis for Howard actually constitutes a reduction in total salary and contract length for the Magic.

Thus, in pretty much every respect I can imagine, we'd be offering a comparable deal.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Blizzy..
> ...


Yes we did and his name was Jamal 



> As it is, we did find our future franchise PG


Yes we did and his name is Kirk 

Does the actuality of this and the comments that were made after Jay's accident and at draft time ( as in " I told Jamal that the situation with Kirk is completely different as it was with Jay .. he's a complementary player .. although I do think he will evetually be a starter in this league" )

There is no eventually about it.. Kirk was installed in quick time 

A reasonable person can only summise :

1. Jay Williams was the man and the Bulls wanted Wade if he was there and perhaps Pietrus if he wasn't 

2. Crawford and ??? were to be traded in a package for ???? 

3. Jay goes down .. we lose the guy they had selected for franchise point and they already knew they didn't want Jamal in that role .. but with the hurly burly of the situation .. they were high on Hinrich regardless and Jamal was obviously not going anywhere with Jay going down and a guy who they wanted to take Jay's place having not proved himself first . They waited until they knew for sure that Kirk was the guy that could step into the breach ( the guy or type of player they preferred in that role ) and they just tried to make ends meet with the Jamal situation and try and make that silk purse from the sow's ear.. put that round peg in the square hole.. and try and salvage something from him when they had already determined he wasn't their guy for the point role

I don't care what anyone says .. you don't draft a back up point guard at #7 ..he was drafted to be the guy 

This .. and the speed with which Pox dealt Rose suggests to me that he had already made up his mind what he thought he might do .. based on his radio analysts role and being around the organisation closely 

I would suggest that Pox didn't invent his dogma on the run when he was thrust into the position of GM .. it was already in tact and he knew the types of players he thought we needed and those we didn't.

If anything .. where I have been critical of him is the fact that I think he not fluid enough and doesn't get the most out of his talent and what he has with this tough unyielding approach.

Don't get me wrong I am not down for pandering to primadonnas and accepting less that what you want .. but there are ways of change and there are ways of change .. and the overtly decisive, judgemental , rah rah , belts and braces approach has led to questionable decisions and management practices that have set us back and put us in a weaker position to negotiate a way forward to improve 

Its fine to have your principles and not to yield from them but there is a fine balance between this and running what assets you do have into the ground such that they are broken and you can't fix them 

Please John, please please please make a close case study of Joe Dumars and see what you can adopt ( and I would suggest that it is a lot )


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, we've discussed that before and I disagree... so maybe we should avoid beating a dead horse . But I don't see how these are that unwanted where they are to just exchange problems. If the Celts trade, they'll look for frontcourt or PG help and let Davis and Welsch man the wings.
> ...


i read some ideas and one that was tossed around alot was Marion, White, the Suns #1 and Joe Johnson for Tmac and Howard. If that was correct
A) Give the Magic cap space the following summer
B) a very high pick for next year
C) 2 players better then anyone we can give

Now, thats a hypothetical so I dont read too much into it. And no need to beat a deadhorse. I agree the pick gives us some movability. However, there wasnt much interest in our players before the deadline apparently, so I think it would be hard to turn chicken **** into chicken salad as Brent Barry said once. In this case, with Tmac, if we pulled it off, I am sure he would stay a year, play with a bunch of NBDL types and take off in FA. As for Pierce, Boston wouldnt move him unless the name Kirk Hinrich comes up. And since Jamal is a RFA, he is pretty much off the table.

Just my opinion. I hope this isnt beating a dead horse


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You said it, not anyone else
> ...


I agree Mikedc. Too much youth doesn't equal wins. Too much youth doesn't assist in the development in young players. I think the Krasue era showed that you need quality veterans around your youth. 

While I see the lack of quality all over the roster, that would be better filled through FA with veterans. If you wanted to trade down, don't trade down and take all of Utah's or Boston's picks, but for some experienced players and lower picks.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree Mikedc. Too much youth doesn't equal wins. Too much youth doesn't assist in the development in young players. I think the Krasue era showed that you need quality veterans around your youth.
> ...


i see you and DCs points. But we have actually tried the veteran thing and have actually been worse off because of it. We tried Rose, AD, Oakley, JYD, etc. And they have all failed. as for young teams not being able to win, Im not sure I totally agree. Memphis is a good example of a reasonably young team built through the draft who now is a big winner. If you go way back to Cleveland in the late 80s, they built a team very quickly through the draft with basically one vet (Larry Nance). There are other examples as well. I just think getting a quality vet to come to this mess right now is next to impossible. So obtaining alot of youth is the way to go. Krause had the right plan, but just got rid of the wrong players. If we had Miller, Brand and Artest today, we wouldnt be talking about trading down cause we would have a pretty low pick. Perhaps Pax should take the first part of the plan, get a ton of talent, and then weed out the players who dont fit down the line? He might do a better job then JK did.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i read some ideas and one that was tossed around alot was Marion, White, the Suns #1 and Joe Johnson for Tmac and Howard. If that was correct
> ...


But fundamentally, you have to ask yourself why the Suns would make this trade. If getting TMac means you turn the rest of your team into the rest of the Magic, there's not much point in doing it.

Likewise, if you get TMac on the Bulls, you have to either be very confident of Chandler's ability to get healthy or you have to be able to trade him for something. In either case though, it's just a bunch of rhetoric that the rest of the team is NBDL players. You re-sign Crawford, sign a Jackson, Turkoglu, Swift, or Blount, and have a healthy Chandler, and you're back in the swing of things.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i see you and DCs points. But we have actually tried the veteran thing and have actually been worse off because of it. We tried Rose, AD, Oakley, JYD, etc. And they have all failed. as for young teams not being able to win, Im not sure I totally agree. Memphis is a good example of a reasonably young team built through the draft who now is a big winner. If you go way back to Cleveland in the late 80s, they built a team very quickly through the draft with basically one vet (Larry Nance). There are other examples as well. I just think getting a quality vet to come to this mess right now is next to impossible. So obtaining alot of youth is the way to go. Krause had the right plan, but just got rid of the wrong players. If we had Miller, Brand and Artest today, we wouldnt be talking about trading down cause we would have a pretty low pick. Perhaps Pax should take the first part of the plan, get a ton of talent, and then weed out the players who dont fit down the line? He might do a better job then JK did.


Memphis has youth, but none of their players are really projects like ours are (Chandler and Curry, maybe Crawford). Miller and Gasol were ROY players. Posey is in his 5th year. Battier was a 4 year college player. Swift was really their only project.

As for us, I thought we played our best ball with veterans such as Rose and Marshall. While it seems Rose didn't set the best example in terms of defense and off court practice habits, we won more with those guys. As for AD and JYD, these guys are just bench players who shouldn't get getting more than 20mins. There playing time is a reflection of the lack of talent on our roster. So getting guys who can be meaning contributors is what is needed.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i see you and DCs points. But we have actually tried the veteran thing and have actually been worse off because of it. We tried Rose, AD, Oakley, JYD, etc. And they have all failed. as for young teams not being able to win, Im not sure I totally agree. Memphis is a good example of a reasonably young team built through the draft who now is a big winner.


But that's not an example of a team built the way that Arenas was talking about with nothing but teenie-boppers.

Rose and Marshall weren't necessarily failures since they did boost our win total a good amount last year. Likewise, trading off Miller, Brand, and Artest just as they were starting to hit stride also doesn't count.

We have NEVER, since the MJ-Pip teams, had a base of ready to play players like most NBA teams have. We've had a bunch of guys that were under the hill and guys that were over the hill, but very few players... Rose and Marshall were about the only ones... that were kings of the hill.

Ironically, we got Rose by trading away 4 guys who had or would have within a year or two reached that critical mass of experience.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But fundamentally, you have to ask yourself why the Suns would make this trade. If getting TMac means you turn the rest of your team into the rest of the Magic, there's not much point in doing it.
> ...


i dont see a team of Tmac, an MLE (JR might not even allow us to use it), Hinrich and Crawford doing much. Chandler is a wild card. but that team is one injury away from looking really bad. and there is no to little bench help. I see the bench as basically Linton, Shirley, Dupree and Pargo, hence, a bunch of NBDLers

Now from the Phoenix stand point. They get Tmac, they still have Amare and barbosa. They have a Lampe and Cabarkapa. They might still have cap space to make a run at a player. and they would have Milos Vujanic in the wings. They could deal all of those guys away and still look like a superior team then what we would have if we made that trade. Also, I see Phoenix as more likely to keep Tmac. Tmac probably wouldnt stay in Chicago. If he wanted to lose, hed stay at home in Orlando.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But that's not an example of a team built the way that Arenas was talking about with nothing but teenie-boppers.
> ...


critical mass is a good way to describe it. however, krause had the right plan, just didnt execute it right. To get a ready to play NBA player to come to Chicago is going to require a lot. Like I said, you cant make chicken salad out of chicken ****. To get a star is going to deplete the roster alot. Id rather allow our kids, Chandler, Curry, Crawford and Kirk to get to that critical mass stage, if they ever get to it, and have a steady dose of young talent pushing them everyday in practice for minutes. Its a similar process to the one that Jerry West has in Memphis. 

As for the MLE, we probably are going to be able to get it. But Stephen Jackson is probably not coming to the Bulls and Hedo is not a difference maker. Its going to be hard to get a real difffernce maker with that type of money. However a flier like Giricek or Daniels might be the ticket. but then again, we thought Erob was that guy 3 years ago.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> critical mass is a good way to describe it. however, krause had the right plan, just didnt execute it right. To get a ready to play NBA player to come to Chicago is going to require a lot. Like I said, you cant make chicken salad out of chicken ****. To get a star is going to deplete the roster alot. Id rather allow our kids, Chandler, Curry, Crawford and Kirk to get to that critical mass stage, if they ever get to it, and have a steady dose of young talent pushing them everyday in practice for minutes. Its a similar process to the one that Jerry West has in Memphis.
> 
> As for the MLE, we probably are going to be able to get it. But Stephen Jackson is probably not coming to the Bulls and Hedo is not a difference maker. Its going to be hard to get a real difffernce maker with that type of money. However a flier like Giricek or Daniels might be the ticket. but then again, we thought Erob was that guy 3 years ago.


I think the way Memphis and Jerry West has gone about collecting talent is a great way to go, with the hope of eventually doing a trade to bring in a big time player. However, West hasn't acquired his talent through the draft since he's been there. Sign Posey with the MLE, traded for Bonzi Wells, signed Earl Watson but probably more importantly, got a coach who the players like and play for.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i dont see a team of Tmac, an MLE (JR might not even allow us to use it), Hinrich and Crawford doing much. Chandler is a wild card. but that team is one injury away from looking really bad. and there is no to little bench help. I see the bench as basically Linton, Shirley, Dupree and Pargo, hence, a bunch of NBDLers
> ...


Any team is an injury away from looking really bad... that argument can be applied to most any team.

Hinrich looks like a future All-Star to me. He's a better guy to have than Barbossa or Vujanic. Crawford is a borderline star. Chandler is the weak link, but if he can stay healthy he'll rival what Amare brings. The MLE brings a quality starting level player, and we have the $1.6M VE this year, which should bring an ok player if used properly (Mo Peterson, at the most optimistic). Again you're interjecting stuff like "Reinsdorf won't pay" which is pretty much nonsense in the sense that guys like C Bliz are complaining about. I've got my doubts about Reinsdorf, but even I don't think he's a total fool. If we go through all the trouble of trading for a guy like TMac, he's going to make the investment to give it a fair shot of working. Anything besides that is counterintuitive.

Finally, you left off JYD and AD, who while not spectacular players are quality starting/6th man quality guys. Not only that, they'd be more effective playing with a guy like TMac because their offensive deficiencies wouldn't be quite as much of burden. Gill could conceivably be back and healthy for the minimum.

So OK, where does that put us:
1-Kirk, (Crawford)
2-Crawford, Peterson, Gill
3-TMac, (Peterson)
4-Swift, JYD
5- Chandler, Davis

Let's see... that's a 10 man squad there that doesn't feature any of the NBDL guys.

Regarding Phoenix, Lampe and Cabarkapa don't look that ready to contribute to me... they didn't look anywhere close this year. In general, they were pretty freaking bad down the stretch. They've also given away two future 1st round picks, so not much help is on the way for them.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> critical mass is a good way to describe it. however, krause had the right plan, just didnt execute it right. To get a ready to play NBA player to come to Chicago is going to require a lot. Like I said, you cant make chicken salad out of chicken ****. To get a star is going to deplete the roster alot. Id rather allow our kids, Chandler, Curry, Crawford and Kirk to get to that critical mass stage, if they ever get to it, and have a steady dose of young talent pushing them everyday in practice for minutes.


I don't disagree with anything here except the last sentence. Bringing in young clueless kids that can't help isn't going to push 4th and 5th year pros for minutes or hunger. It's just going to put more clueless kids on the floor. In turn, that puts more unmeetable expectations and pressure on the guys we are hoping reach critical mass.

Reaching that mass is a gradual thing... and it would be easy to screw it up. thus, we need to do everything we can to make it easier, and putting another couple of 18-20 year old kids on this team is so ridiculously in the wrong direction on that front I don't know how to put it in words. That's NOT a recipe for success.



> Its a similar process to the one that Jerry West has in Memphis.
> 
> As for the MLE, we probably are going to be able to get it. But Stephen Jackson is probably not coming to the Bulls and Hedo is not a difference maker. Its going to be hard to get a real difffernce maker with that type of money. However a flier like Giricek or Daniels might be the ticket. but then again, we thought Erob was that guy 3 years ago.


Yet, none of this stuff is very useful from an operational perspective. Hell, at the 3, the guy will be a difference-maker just if he's a quality NBA player. At every other position on the floor this year, our starters were at least comparable to what other NBA teams might have. But because we got so little production out of our 3s, it was often like we were playing 4 on 5. That's a critical mass problem of its own. Just having a guy who's decent like Hedo or Jackson will be a pretty significant improvement.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

BTW .. the notion of getting younger argument is sheer unbridled lunacy in its purest form 

See : Donnie Walsh and the concept of basic equilbrium in the mix .. and proper progression planning to the team the Pacers had 3 seasons ago ( a team on the decline ) and the team they have now ( league's best record )

See : Joe Dumars and Darko Milicic 

See : See Geoff Petrie and Gerald Wallace 

See : Don Nelson and Marquis Daniels and Josh Howard

See : Jim Paxson and Lebron James ( bye bye Ricky and Darius ) 

It isn't rocket science guys .. Jerry Krause challenged the popular notion of how to build a champion and we're left with the legacy 

Sooner or later you hace to crap or get off the pot ... and the draftnik addiction to the sexy new thangs is like the hit you can't resist because the promise of it gives you release 

We've got our talent.. (or what will be left of it ) 

The real courage now is to pick your guys .. deal the others.. ( or let them go ) and deal them for vets that can actually play and not washed up primates that have to teach from the ancient paintings from the crypt.. but can actually get out there and whoop some

Dare I say grinders to the chagrin of happygrinch ?

No not grinders.. just guys that now how to bring it every night and know what it takes to be a pro 

And whilst I like Tyson and Jamal's talent and I think they will be very good NBA players .. a large part of me sees the rationale in what Sam Smith has been saying ... that we can afford to keep one of the C Unit to pair with Hinrich as the young core .. and bring in pros now who now how to play to round it out ..... basically to try and replicate West/Hubie ball in Memphis 

I do believe that this model in the rigidity and disclipline of it in what Hubie has been able to pull off if what John Paxson and Scott Skiles will try and replicate 

Tony Battie
Shane Battier
Kurt Thomas
Jiri Welsch
Chris Duhon
Mickael Pietrus 
Manu Ginobili 
Emeka Okafor 
Allan Houston 
Antawn Jamsion
Danny Fortson 
Wally Sczcerbiak
Calvin Booth
Troy Murphy
Charlie Ward
Malik Rose
Stephen Jackson
Wesley Person

Perhaps even Chris Andersen , Hedo Turkoglu and Rodney White



these are the guys ... I agree Pierce , TMac , Ray Allen , and even Rashard Lewis are all highly unlikely and I don't think this is where we should be aiming anyway 

With one or two key support / complementary pieces added around Curry and Hinrich and another couple of draft picks ( not necessarily lottery ) this team could legitiamtely turn around if John Paxson shows some verve and gumption .. but hopefully laced with some better intelligence than he has displayed this season

And sorry lucas and arenas .. it ain't about stacking em and racking em.. we've been there for the last 5 years and this approach has failed miserably - we had the two proven college players ( Brand and Artest ) akin to Okafor and Gordon and at least two young high schoolers / guys with no real college experience in Curry and Crawford ...and then we had the wrong type of vets to back them up .. and the vets that we did bring in that could still play some ..we continued to chase our tail with the do we play them or do we play the kids .. we could not set the tone in our pecking order for 5 years which reflects indecisive, and ineffective management that has perhaps not as together with a bona fide plan that was measurable in execution /application 

Its time to kick the addiction to the next big hit your going to miss and realise that this type of addiction blinds you to what your reduced to .. which is the rat in the maze always searching for that piece of cheese

Time to rehab. Get off the juice ... and go straight with your choices ( Hinrich and Curry ) and put the right supports / coping mechanisms around them so we don't fall into relapse

And if you think this is an intervention... your damn straight 

 

BTW guys .. I thought you had some fair points in principle at the start of this thread about the need to establish excellence and ethic by leading from the front 

People don't follow words.. they get inspired by example/action 

That's real leadership

And in any organisation that has to start from the top and flow down


At the risk of being a Management basher and offending the Management apologists, that frankly I feel have been a lil bit too precious about the basic rights of posters to put opinion forward as the incompetence of Management - so long as reasons and rationale are put forward for the purpose of stimulating a constructive debate... I am not convinced we have this excellence.. this capacity to inspire in Management of this organisation


I question the commitment of Jerry Reinsdorf

As an armchair critic .. it seems to me there is a lot of insecurity, 2nd guessing and unsuredness dressed up as dogma .. that masks the polictics of this organisation that hampers its effectiveness

And its this dogma of management that is promulgated and reflects the blue collar basic working man values ..( that similarly profiled posters respond to ) , rather than looking at what we have for what it is and trying to best work with it ... which is at the crux for the real issue that engulfs this organisation and its fans.

Those who choose to see what they want to see and those that see something different that together _with _ our players is at the _real core_ of what's rotten within the Chicago Bulls

The Culture of the organisation and what it exuded way back when .. and now .. is unable to be reconciled as many can't accept what we are - as opposed to what we would like to be .. and which we are a looooooooooonnnnng way from being

The common issue is we are all fans and we all want to this organisation and its team get better ... but John Paxson has to bring it first .. then Scott Skiles .. and then our players .. and that's where it all gets Back to John Paxson and Scott Skiles .. get the players that you want and who will respond to you without necessarily taking a bath in the talent pool

And after that there truly are no more excuses


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> If you go way back to Cleveland in the late 80s, they built a team very quickly through the draft with basically one vet (Larry Nance).


That was back in the day that College actually was a deeper and more fertile breeding ground in properly preparing players for the NBA


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> The common issue is we are all fans and we all want to this organisation and its team get better ... but John Paxson has to bring it first .. then Scott Skiles .. and then our players .. and that's where it all gets Back to John Paxson and Scott Skiles .. get the players that you want and who will respond to you without necessarily taking a bath in the talent pool
> 
> And after that there truly are no more excuses


Only in professional sports is the most expected from those who are paid the least.

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World! God bless Jonathan Winters.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Any team is an injury away from looking really bad... that argument can be applied to most any team.
> ...


DC, How is it nonsense to say JR might not pay for the MLE when everyone agrees that if Pippen comes back or doesnt agree to a buyout, that it in fact will most likely happen. I didnt come up with it, the papers and people close to the Bulls said it. And if that is the case, forget it. 

As for Phoenix vs the Bulls. First off, again Tmac will not be a Bull for anything less all 3 of our tradable assets. Look at the possibilities for Orlando. They could get an allstar in marion, a high number one pick and Joe Johnson for him. That is a much better deal then we could offer. If you think there is that big a difference between Barbosa and Hinrich, then I say go back and look at the game they played against each other. As the season progressed, the difference wasnt much, and Barbosa was playing better players out west nightly. The difference is Amare. He is a stud. And Amare and Tmac together would be a foundation that we simply would never have. Whats scary is that they would still have cap space to make a run at a player. Throw in Lampe, Vujanic (who is the best pg prospect from Europe), Cabarkapa who was great early last year, Jacobsen and that FA, and frankly I cant see how that is worse then Hinrich (assuming your model), Crawford and Chandler. As for AD, we are talking about an aging player. My guess is his game shows major deterioation next year. It already has been some. Same applies to JYD, who frankly wasnt that effective for us. That team wins maybe 35 games. At the end of the season Tmac would be gone in FA. Doesnt make much sense to me

As for injury away. Lets look at Minnesota. They lost 3 rotation players early and led the midwest throughout. The Kings lost Webber and were the best team in the league without him. The Lakers lost KM, Shaq and Kobe for stretches and remained close. Memphis lost Mike Miller for a stretch and were very good. NO didnt have Mash earlier in the year and did ok without him. Utah, and what was expected to be the worst team in basketball, lost Harpring and still almost made the playoffs. That goes to show that many teams can take an injury and still be able to field a team. What do those teams have in common? Depth. And that is something we dont have. And to make any deal for a superstar will deplete our roster even more. Doing the trade for draft choices gives us that depth, maybe in some form next year, but certainly in 2. Again, I am not planning on a playoff run next year. So in my plan, you have to look out 2 years. 

Now assuming Pippen is bought out, and/or the Bulls use the MLE, who is realistic? Hedo definetely is. But he hasnt done much after a surprising good start to his career. I think in 2 years wed all be complaining about him too as a cap hindrance similar to how we complain about Erob to this day. Stephen Jackson said nice things about the Bulls which got us all excited. But guess what, he was saying nice things about every team he played against. He is marketing himself. Stromile would be great, but do you think West is going to let him walk for nothing? He would match an MLE for him. Marquis Daniels is a bit of a wildcard but as most have said, does anyone think Cuban is going to let him walk? The point is, the MLE will be valuable, but it most likely will go to someone who falls through the cracks. 2 years ago, no one had Donyell Marshall as a target or even as someone who would be available for that money. Even 2 days before he was signed, no one thought he was being considered. and then one day it happened. My guess is that it will be someone like him. somebody we never thought about to start off with. 

DC, Id also like to just finish up by saying where in this thread did I make a preconcieved notion on anything? You called my JR comment nonsense, however its being mass reported everywhere? It is not fair ground to say that Pax might not be allowed to use it?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> DC, How is it nonsense to say JR might not pay for the MLE when everyone agrees that if Pippen comes back or doesnt agree to a buyout, that it in fact will most likely happen. I didnt come up with it, the papers and people close to the Bulls said it. And if that is the case, forget it.


I already explained why I think it's nonsense and here you are asking me again.  What I'm kind of objecting to is the fact that I explained my objections and you skip over them and just say the same thing you did in the first place.

Maybe that's not nonsense, but if I you say something, I reject it and give reasons why, and then you just say the same thing again without addressing my criticism, well what's the point of discussing anything? 

As I said before, Reinsdorf's not a total buffoon. He knows that if he buys a trophy wife, he's got to be willing to spend money on clothes too, and not let her wonder around in hot pants.



> As for Phoenix vs the Bulls. First off, again Tmac will not be a Bull for anything less all 3 of our tradable assets. Look at the possibilities for Orlando. They could get an allstar in marion, a high number one pick and Joe Johnson for him. That is a much better deal then we could offer.


And this is the other thing I object to... there is absolutely no evidence that Phoenix would actually offer this. I mean, I'll freely concede that all these trades are hypothetical, but I think that's also grounds for not factually asserting one trade will trump another.

I mean, sure, if Phoenix actually offers that, the Magic should take it and run. But the same would be true if I said "Minnesota is going to offer Garnett and Cassell for TMac". But that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

So what we get back to is a need to provide some kind of justification for the Suns to trade all those assets. And I don't see how they are any more likely to than we are because they face exactly the same problems we do.



> If you think there is that big a difference between Barbosa and Hinrich, then I say go back and look at the game they played against each other. As the season progressed, the difference wasnt much, and Barbosa was playing better players out west nightly. The difference is Amare. He is a stud. And Amare and Tmac together would be a foundation that we simply would never have. Whats scary is that they would still have cap space to make a run at a player. Throw in Lampe, Vujanic (who is the best pg prospect from Europe), Cabarkapa who was great early last year, Jacobsen and that FA, and frankly I cant see how that is worse then Hinrich (assuming your model), Crawford and Chandler. As for AD, we are talking about an aging player. My guess is his game shows major deterioation next year. It already has been some. Same applies to JYD, who frankly wasnt that effective for us. That team wins maybe 35 games. At the end of the season Tmac would be gone in FA. Doesnt make much sense to me
> 
> As for injury away. Lets look at Minnesota. They lost 3 rotation players early and led the midwest throughout. The Kings lost Webber and were the best team in the league without him. The Lakers lost KM, Shaq and Kobe for stretches and remained close. Memphis lost Mike Miller for a stretch and were very good. NO didnt have Mash earlier in the year and did ok without him. Utah, and what was expected to be the worst team in basketball, lost Harpring and still almost made the playoffs. That goes to show that many teams can take an injury and still be able to field a team. What do those teams have in common? Depth. And that is something we dont have. And to make any deal for a superstar will deplete our roster even more. Doing the trade for draft choices gives us that depth, maybe in some form next year, but certainly in 2. Again, I am not planning on a playoff run next year. So in my plan, you have to look out 2 years.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's at all clear that it's being "mass reported". Some guys have speculated about it, but that's far from fact.

I guess the basic point is that if it is a fact, why bother talking about anything else anyway? If we're gonna be sold down the river like that it doesn't matter what our plan is because I don't be watching. :no:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I already explained why I think it's nonsense and here you are asking me again.  What I'm kind of objecting to is the fact that I explained my objections and you skip over them and just say the same thing you did in the first place.
> ...


DC, mate, the tone is a bit harsh. I am not saying anything that the press hasnt in terms of the MLE. No need to jump down my throat. We know if you were running the ship, things would be different. But your not JR and you dont know what he thinks . No one does. Is it possible he could handcuff Pax? Ofcourse it is. Is it likely? I have no idea. But to call what I say "nonsense" when I am just saying what every paper in town has said is a bit rough. 

Now for the Tmac stuff. Again I ask, why should the Magic deal with us when they can get a star for Tmac? This is a team that is looking at attendance problems and an owner who wants to make money. They would never replace Tmac with only 2 out of our 3 tradable assets. And our assets are still classified as maybes. If Phoenix were to offer them the deal that most people on that link say they would, then we arent even close. Ill take it a step further, if the Lakers did a sign and trade of Kobe for Tmac, as the LA Times speculated awhile back, again that would appease Orlando. The point is, there is 28 other teams in the NBA. And do we really think that Orlando is going to us Tmac for 2 "maybes"? I mean, your the best GM there is here yet, no doubt about it, but heck, even GS fans are talking about Jrich, a resigned Dampier and their pick for Tmac. We couldnt compete with that even. Tmac is not in our future. Pierce as well. Rashard Lewis even is going to require 2 of our tradable assets. Again, as Brent Barry once said, we cant make chicken salad our of chicken poop. and if the demand of our players before the deadline is any issue, I figure there wont be too much movement. I just think there is a gap in the value everyone has assigned to Tmac and what you think he is worth. My guess is that the 28 other teams in the NBA would value him more like the LA Times would. But thats just a guess. Ultimately, the question to you becomes, would you trade our 3 definable trading assets for Tmac, a FA? I dont know what I would do. 

As for Phoenix if they got Tmac. I cant believe I read that you think they would be in the same spot as us. I mean, Tmac and Amare on the same team? With Barbosa, Lampe, Cabarkapa and a ton of cap space to go after, gulp, maybe Kobe. And they are not in a better position as us? They have 2 definable building blocks in Tmac and Amare if they make that trade. if they traded with us, we would have one, and that would be Tmac, who happens to be a FA at the end of the year. Where I come from, 2 is always better then one. 



Now DC, you know I think your the best. But this isnt rhetoric and this isnt agenda pushing or whatever people want to accuse me of today. The MLE is a question mark, Tmac and Pierce are impossibilities and what not. Assuming I am right, how should we build this team? Thats the question I put forth to you? And I ask only you cause I think you have the most creative GM ideas here.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> DC, mate, the tone is a bit harsh. I am not saying anything that the press hasnt in terms of the MLE. No need to jump down my throat. We know if you were running the ship, things would be different. But your not JR and you dont know what he thinks . No one does. Is it possible he could handcuff Pax? Ofcourse it is. Is it likely? I have no idea. But to call what I say "nonsense" when I am just saying what every paper in town has said is a bit rough.
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> DC, mate, the tone is a bit harsh. I am not saying anything that the press hasnt in terms of the MLE. No need to jump down my throat. We know if you were running the ship, things would be different. But your not JR and you dont know what he thinks . No one does. Is it possible he could handcuff Pax? Ofcourse it is. Is it likely? I have no idea. But to call what I say "nonsense" when I am just saying what every paper in town has said is a bit rough.


OK, sorry for being harsh, but I still don't think every paper in town has said it. Until I see something more concrete, I'm going to assume we get to use it.

But my main point was that if you're gonna do something like go and get a TMac, you don't do things half-assed. Even if Reinsdorf is inclined to not use the MLE now, he's smart enough to understand that a change in the circumstances of that proportion requires you to rethink how you're going to go about things.



> Now for the Tmac stuff. ... <snip>... But thats just a guess. Ultimately, the question to you becomes, would you trade our 3 definable trading assets for Tmac, a FA? I dont know what I would do.


Nope. The whole point of making a trade is get as much as you can for the future. Trading away all of your other assets puts you back at square one.

That being said, reading through the link I posted, I do't see how 



> As for Phoenix if they got Tmac. I cant believe I read that you think they would be in the same spot as us. I mean, Tmac and Amare on the same team? With Barbosa, Lampe, Cabarkapa and a ton of cap space to go after, gulp, maybe Kobe. And they are not in a better position as us? They have 2 definable building blocks in Tmac and Amare if they make that trade. if they traded with us, we would have one, and that would be Tmac, who happens to be a FA at the end of the year. Where I come from, 2 is always better then one.


I'll confess that I'm not a super huge fan of Amare and I've soured on Lampe quite a bit. I could always be wrong though.

Also, I don't think they've got enough cap room to sign Kobe, although any of the other FAs are probably in striking distance.




> Now DC, you know I think your the best. But this isnt rhetoric and this isnt agenda pushing or whatever people want to accuse me of today. The MLE is a question mark, Tmac and Pierce are impossibilities and what not. Assuming I am right, how should we build this team? Thats the question I put forth to you? And I ask only you cause I think you have the most creative GM ideas here.


I'll get back to you on this... gotta get some research done


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I'll confess that I'm not a super huge fan of Amare and I've soured on Lampe quite a bit. I could always be wrong though.


Not being a fan of a guy doesn't change that the guy is a top talent. 

After watching Lampe, he looks like Brad Miller in the making but with an outside game. What he does in the post area and how he passes the ball reminds me of Miller.

Phoenix has a lot more going for them than we do and for those reasons I don't see them being in the same position as we are.

They could acquire TMac and get better whereas we'd have to give up the farm and with TMac and no other talent, we basically have his Orlando team but it's in Chicago.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> You should have learned a long time ago that Pax can do no wrong...


Quit making things personal - MikeDC


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Seriously man when are you going to stop trolling for my posts and then making a comment towards me?

You're not even discussing what the threads are about, you're just commenting on whatever I said.

Your last 10 posts have been that and I'm sick of it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Seriously man when are you going to stop trolling for my posts and then making a comment towards me?
> 
> You're not even discussing what the threads are about, you're just commenting on whatever I said.
> ...


Ignore list...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Ignore list...


Done.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

This whole thing over Pietrus is meaninless debate. Maybe only for aome who still think Kirk was wrong pick. To them I don't know what to say.

These couple of people still talking about Pietrus thing is pretty much same group of people who want Jamal at PG. Since Paxon pick a true and better version of PG in Kirk, they never really forgive Paxon ever since. 

So they are just bitter aboutwhatever Paxon did ever since. Don't pay too much to their opinion on this matter IMHO.

If anybody is still arguing about whether Krik being right pick or not is totally beyond me.


----------



## trueorfalse (May 31, 2003)

I have not bothered to browse through the entire thread since I think that it lost focus somewhere after the third page so forgive me if this has already been posted.



> It doesnt give me the rosters for the other teams. Do you have that? I would love to take a look. Just looking at the teams that are at this tournament, however, its fairly obvious its littered with NBA prospects. Maybe not on TEAM USA. But on the other teams there


Here is the link, hope ypu find it usefull.

Albert Schweitzer


----------

