# Comcast Reporting Skiles Has SIGNED new deal with Bulls



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

This situation just got stranger. After all the negative stories saying negotiations had been cut off, now Skiles all of a sudden agrees to a new 4-year deal? It's good news if it's true (IMO, anyway), but now I wonder if all the articles and radio reports this morning were nothing but a bunch of bull**** posturing?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

what!!!???


chilled vodka drinks all around.

i don't doubt you, girlygirl, your sources are impeccable. is there a link??

(oh and does anyone else feel their proverbial chain has been somewhat yanked?)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Same reported by NBC5 in Chicago...


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

are u [edit]ing me?

I believe u too girly... no reason for u to lie... this is just too strange to be true!

EDIT: They just reported it on 670am

jesus christ



I think Mike North's *** BEATING on the radio in the morning may have done a LITTLE something....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I just checked. The date is NOT April 1.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

So who blinked?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

My wife chose the moment the story broke on NBC to start asking me questions about something else, so I didn't hear all the details. Late afternoon deal was done, Big Jer did get personally involved. 4 year deal.

No links avaliable yet, but I'm sure we'll get one posted in the next few minutes.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I hope these are false stories.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

mac jurko and harry just reporting it too.

skiles may be on the air with them soon. apparently he is meeting with the media right now at moody bible college.

wow.

wow

kudos to pax for maintaining his cool and just making it happen!!!


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

I hope skiles dumped his little weasel of an agent.... skiles hadn't even heard what glass said on the radio the day before when he was on earlier this morning...


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Maybe that interview with Mike North got to him.... 

What a messed up situation.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I sure hope this is true.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

North said after skiles/north had that radio interview Skiles talked to reinsdorf and straightned things out HIMSELF


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I just heard on Comcast, too...I must admit, didn't see this one coming. I think it's completely obvious that Skiles and his agent were NOT on the same page.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

link

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

they just had a sound bite with skiles on espn1000 radio and he sounded happy so yes, it's a done deal.

he said it wasn't done with "the grace" which he had hoped (yes, he said this) and apparently skiles got on the phone with jerry and cleared the air.

i think skiles blinked.

Pax rocks!!!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Talk about a STUNNING turn of events...let's get that contract inked to make it official!! Bash Uncle Jerry all you want, but he got something done which certainly counts for something. I'm not sure who to praise here....did Pax convince the boss to stretch the budget? Did Skiles finally come to his senses? 

Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow....


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Agents suck. They always have to get their 15 minutes.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Welcome home Skiles.

New Chicago icon? maybe


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> they just had a sound bite with skiles on espn1000 radio and he sounded happy so yes, it's a done deal.
> 
> he said it wasn't done with "the grace" which he had hoped (yes, he said this) and apparently skiles got on the phone with jerry and cleared the air.
> 
> ...



You bet. Agree on all counts. Like the irony of mr. grace, miz!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> You bet. Agree on all counts. Like the irony of mr. grace, miz!


i couldn't believe that turn of phrase, but that's skiles for ya.

what we just had here friends was a good 'ol fashioned pissing contest.

skiles and jerry at high noon.

cue spaghetti western music.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

this entire situation has been so surreal that I haven't even known what to say all this time. 

that said, I'm sure glad that it looks like things have worked out. It seemed like things broke down over such petty differences (on the surface). I'm glad for this news. I was losing respect for Uncle Jerry AND Skiles (or his agent, I guess) through this "tinkling" contest they were having.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

glass on the radio right now with mac on epsn1000


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> glass on the radio right now with mac on epsn1000


what did the weasal have to say?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Glad to hear this. I was very disappointed with the earlier news. Even considered (gulp!) joining the "Big Jer' sell the Bull" club....


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

What the ****?!?!?! Well, that's great news, I think, but this is one of the strangest situations I can imagine. 

So, what in the HELL was going on the last couple days??? Jesus.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ah, posturing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

HAWK23 said:


> what did the weasal have to say?


of course the phone rings just as he goes on. sorry i didn't get it.

but i did get invited to go to the country this weekend, so that's good!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I have a feeling that Skiles only signed to protect his image.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ah, posturing.


Interesting how some people give Paxson all the credit?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> but i did get invited to go to the country this weekend, so that's good!


Did you also find out that you just saved yourself a lot of money on your car insurance?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Interesting how some people give Paxson all the credit?


Well, when certain people are determined to give him none... 

I think Skiles probably realized that he has a good situation here and had been offered a reasonable deal, and that maybe his "standards" about how a deal should be negotiated shouldn't ruin an otherwise good thing for him. And he must have received some type of reassurance from Jerry that he is indeed wanted and appreciated here.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Interesting how some people give Paxson all the credit?


I'm not sure what you're driving at in response to my comment. All I meant to say was maybe both sides made things seem more dire than they were in order to serve their respective purposes.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

_I Told You So!_

_I hate this Org...!_

_Fire ReinsDORK!!!

So cheap... _ 

:nonono: 

The amount of venom some of you guys put in your posts the last 2 days is amusing. Thank god for the power of thread bumping.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Frankensteiner said:


> _I Told You So!_
> 
> _I hate this Org...!_
> 
> ...


 :clap: 

No one will own up to being idiots about it, though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm not sure what you're driving at in response to my comment. All I meant to say was maybe both sides made things seem more dire than they were in order to serve their respective purposes.


It was in response to your earlier posts, saying Paxson had to live within the limits placed on him by Reinsdorf. Suggesting that Paxson had no ability to get the deal done.

So when Skiles calls Reinsdorf directly and gets it done, people jump all over the "Paxson got it done!" line.

FWIW


----------



## WestHighHawk (Jun 28, 2003)

Phew, glad that is over! :cheers: 

Hope they all put that fire out.....(maybe we need an icon where the little guys dump their beers out :biggrin: )


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Skiles saw the Sun-Times this morning and in the back page it said "Divorce Court" It prompted Skiles to act. Since Pax wasn't available, Skiles called Paxson if it was ok to talk directly with Jerry around noon today. Skiles had a heart to heart with Jerry and they cleared the air and some misunderstandings.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> :clap:
> 
> No one will own up to being idiots about it, though.


I'll own up to mine.

I WANT SKILES GONE. 

Paxson you were the chosen one. It was said that you would fire Skiles, not extend him. You were suppose to restore proffessionalism to the organization, not get a coach that is a whiny little *****. You were like a brother to me John.....I love*d* you.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Im glad its over but who knows what really happened .it seems to me that Skiles is the type to do an impromptu conference call with Jerry and and clear the air for all we know maybe even Glass was in on the call.

Im just glad a negative was turned into a positive and Skiles was retained but if I recall some of the posts around here this morning... was it ?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It was in response to your earlier posts, saying Paxson had to live within the limits placed on him by Reinsdorf. Suggesting that Paxson had no ability to get the deal done.
> 
> So when Skiles calls Reinsdorf directly and gets it done, people jump all over the "Paxson got it done!" line.
> 
> FWIW


I actually agree with you (shocker that!) and my last post was just a little rib for ol' times sake. I wouldn't be that surprised if Paxson called one or both parties in a last-ditch effort, but since that hasn't been reported, I won't "give him all the credit" for this.

Seems to me that two (three if you count Glass, who seemed to be a catalyst for the negativity) very stubborn men squabbled needlessly (as stubborn people sometimes do), but eventually cooler heads prevailed and both came to their senses and made a deal.

edit: looks like spongy has the scoop.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It was in response to your earlier posts, saying Paxson had to live within the limits placed on him by Reinsdorf. Suggesting that Paxson had no ability to get the deal done.
> 
> So when Skiles calls Reinsdorf directly and gets it done, people jump all over the "Paxson got it done!" line.
> 
> FWIW


how do we know pax wasn't involved in getting skiles to even pick up the phone? 

since i also fall into this "category", let me just say that i think pax, by maintaining "no comment" through this whole thing, is a class act. 

i wonder how much crow was consumed by the respective parties.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> how do we know pax wasn't involved in getting skiles to even pick up the phone?
> 
> since i also fall into this "category", let me just say that i think pax, by maintaining "no comment" through this whole thing, is a class act.
> 
> i wonder how much crow was consumed by the respective parties.


I have been saying all day that Paxson SHOULD get it done.

The end result may be good, but the process may have caused bad feelings that were unneccessary.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Paxson seemingly didn't do anything today. Paxson said he was disappointed with the way things went the past two days but he said he went about business the "right way" of doing things. Skiles also thinks that the way he went about it was the "right way" as well.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...kiles,1,1190351.story?coll=cs-home-headlinesf



> *Bulls, Skiles agree to contract extension*
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

It's obvious what happened here.....

Skiles read the Sam Smith article and came to his senses.


























(Just kidding.)


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

:curse: no phil???? come back phil!!!!!!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Wow. What to think about all this?!?

Seems to me the boys finally decided to play nice-nice. I'd also think most all of this could have been averted if all parties had put aside their ego's and sense of how "business is done" and just sat down face-to-face and hammered out a deal.

I don't know who contacted whom first, but I've got to believe it was Skiles getting in touch with Reinsdorf (which I'm sure is what Reinsdorf wanted). I'm glad Skiles is staying. He's a good coach. It wouldn't have been the end of the world if he left, but a bird in the hand yada, yada, yada.

Well, one of the key to-do items for this offseason is finished, albiet in a less than glamourous fashon. Let's hope that the rest of the to-do list get done in a much better light or this is going to be a looonnnnggggg summer!


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Well, what a suprising (and fortunate) turn of events!! This thing looked like it was about ready to go down the crapper, and then just does a complete turn about face. Weird. 

Who knows if someone finally blinked, or if Skiles' agent is just full of hot air, or if one of many possible scenarios took place (I don't think any of us are in any sort of position to claim that we really knew what went on), but phew, this sure does make the whole offseason look a lot more peachier. 

This situation was really looking like a black cloud hanging over the franchise. Finally we can turn our attention to signing our free agents, and all the guys on our team can have the security of knowing that Skiles is back in the fold, for the foreseeable future. 

Onwards and upwards.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Let's hope that the rest of the to-do list get done in a much better light or this is going to be a looonnnnggggg summer!


But what fun would that be? If this offseason goes exactly as hoped for, I'm going to have to find some other way to keep myself from being a productive human being.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Earth to Scottmay.

Earth to Scottmay.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> Paxson seemingly didn't do anything today. Paxson said he was disappointed with the way things went the past two days but he said he went about business the "right way" of doing things. Skiles also thinks that the way he went about it was the "right way" as well.


yep, and i thnk that only leaves Chairman Reinsdorf and Skiles (if you will) to blame for using the media the charge up a shipstorm

seems theres no way the public can reason out a private situation without looking like an angry, uninformed pitchfork/torch carrying lynch mob


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Ragingbull33 said:


> :curse: no phil???? come back phil!!!!!!


i miss Phil already 


again


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It was in response to your earlier posts, saying Paxson had to live within the limits placed on him by Reinsdorf. Suggesting that Paxson had no ability to get the deal done.
> 
> So when Skiles calls Reinsdorf directly and gets it done, people jump all over the "Paxson got it done!" line.
> 
> FWIW


Well, he did say that Pax has to live within the limits placed on him by Reinsdorf, which I certainly agree with. But after reading pretty much every post of the day today (bored at work), I don't recall him saying Pax has *no* ability to get the deal done. In a situation like this, Pax would seem to be the mediator/facilitator/middle-man. In the end, he did what he had to do. Like mizenkay said, Pax kept his lips sealed about the whole situation which shows what a class act he is (and if you've met the guy like several of us have, you would already know that by now). When you have an owner with a shaky reputation, it's important to balance that out with someone respected around the league like Pax. I still wonder why anybody would consider firing him after the job he's done, regardless of whether he deserves any credit for the Skiles signing (we know this much, he certainly didn't hinder matters).


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

Hopefully this whole thing has given Curry some heart about playing next year.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> _I Told You So!_
> 
> _I hate this Org...!_
> 
> ...


:laugh:

Make sure to bump the hundreds of threads by people who were arguing all season how important Skiles was to the Bulls, then completely bailed on him when these negotiations got rocky and he had the temerity to ask for what he's worth.

Reinsdorf's still a lousy owner, a lousy negotiator, probably a lousy human being, and a huge impediment to this team getting good again. None of that's changed one iota.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Earth to Scottmay.
> 
> Earth to Scottmay.


How may I be of assistance?

Chairman Reinsdorf's heavy-handed ways turned what should have been a happy, peaceful, mutually beneficial contract extension into a Bay of Pigs that a young team entering a pivotal offseason needed like it needed a new a-hole. 

Quick, I'm having those bad thoughts again; someone tell me about how the Chairman generously bought out those Pippen and ERob deals to restore my faith.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

-Chairman R: "this guy doesn't just want big money, he wants a good contract!"

-Pax: "what will we do?"

-Chairman R: "Read tommorows papers, you'll see. Lets just say the public will know what he's turned down"

-Pax: "I don't like that idea. He'll push back"

-Chairman R: "He'll capitulate"

-Pax: "Skiles? He doesn't do that!"

-Chairman R: "The public will be on our side. They won't look at the deal. Only the bottom line numbers"

-Pax: (thinks to himself)......."I wish I was in the Bahamas" :no: 
(out loud)...."Suit yourself. I'm here to be the face. But he'll do something"


*few days later, Skiles and mouthpiece say they are going home, Reinsdorf is a menace to society, and they are taking the ball with them. Town is lit on fire*

-Glass: "Scott, call the guy. They don't want this. I bet they thought we'd fold"

-Skiles: "Me call?

-Glass: "You. Its got to be you call him. That way the propriety of the exchange is preserved, and he can save face when he drops some of the unreasonable clauses in this deal, and he will because I bet they didn't see this coming"

-Skiles: "Sure, its the way. Funny, he's smaller in person"

-Glass: "I wish I had the pleasure of laying eyes on him. I've only seen pictures"


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

All's well that ends well.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> How may I be of assistance?
> 
> Chairman Reinsdorf's heavy-handed ways turned what should have been a happy, peaceful, mutually beneficial contract extension into a Bay of Pigs that a young team entering a pivotal offseason needed like it needed a new a-hole.
> 
> Quick, I'm having those bad thoughts again; someone tell me about how the Chairman generously bought out those Pippen and ERob deals to restore my faith.


I did bail on Scott, when his agent said the offer was rejected, apparently had no counter and then abruptly said negotiations were over. I thought that was some bad mojo.

I'm glad as hell that Scooter and Jer-Bear got together and got the damn thing hammered our. This was a coach's copntract renegotiation, not a leveraged buyout of a Fortune 100 company. Its a shame the process was so rocky, but thank God it got done.

As to my bailing, it sounded pretty final as of this morning. Said and done. Negotiations over. I said cut bait and don't pick up the option -- An '06 coach search would interfere with our FA hunt.

But the reports that negotiations were done were premature.

Its a good reminder that it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Reinsdorf = veteran of the smear campaign.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I did bail on Scott, when his agent said the offer was rejected, apparently had no counter and then abruptly said negotiations were over. I thought that was some bad mojo.
> 
> I'm glad as hell that Scooter and Jer-Bear got together and got the damn thing hammered our. This was a coach's copntract renegotiation, not a leveraged buyout of a Fortune 100 company. Its a shame the process was so rocky, but thank God it got done.
> 
> ...


Not to worry, TB#1. Things could be a lot worse.

You could be one of the Chicago area writers who took dozens of little, medium, and big swings at Skiles this week, bringing up everything from his quitting episodes to DUI charge in an attempt to paint him as a greedy malcontent the Bulls should be happy to be rid of.

Yikes. Think those first interview sessions at the Berto during the offseason might be a little on the tense side?

And I'm not as sanguine about this being an all's well that ends well sort of deal. This has definitely left its mark -- you just don't hear about this stuff with other organizations.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> *My wife chose the moment the story broke on NBC to start asking me questions about something else, so I didn't hear all the details.* Late afternoon deal was done, Big Jer did get personally involved. 4 year deal.
> 
> No links avaliable yet, but I'm sure we'll get one posted in the next few minutes.


Damn, you are whipped!!*









*- "Whipped" being a synonym for "married"


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Not to worry, TB#1. Things could be a lot worse.
> 
> You could be one of the Chicago area writers who took dozens of little, medium, and big swings at Skiles this week, bringing up everything from his quitting episodes to DUI charge in an attempt to paint him as a greedy malcontent the Bulls should be happy to be rid of.


or one of the minions who bought that drivel



> Yikes. Think those first interview sessions at the Berto during the offseason might be a little on the tense side?


knowing the Chairman? perish the thought :biggrin: 



> And I'm not as sanguine about this being an all's well that ends well sort of deal. This has definitely left its mark -- you just don't hear about this stuff with other organizations.


definately. Don't the Bulls bring out the best in people????


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Make sure to bump the hundreds of threads by people who were arguing all season how important Skiles was to the Bulls, then completely bailed on him when these negotiations got rocky and he had the temerity to ask for what he's worth.


I'm not one to bump threads and rub anything in people's faces (not that there's really anything to rub after the recent drama). But let me make one thing clear...there's a big difference between questioning a guy's coaching abilities and questioning his methods of negotiating a contract. I've thought of him as a brilliant coach for quite some time now, and I supported Skiles through thick and thin. But I'm failing to see why that has anything to do with the situation at hand. I guess where we disagreed was his market value...but then again, this whole scenario wasn't about money, was it? 



> Reinsdorf's still a lousy owner, a lousy negotiator, probably a lousy human being, and a huge impediment to this team getting good again. None of that's changed one iota.


I agree with most of that, except I still don't think he's as big an obstacle as you suggest. I'll leave that argument for another day though.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

what are the odds the Curry (assuming resonable health) and Chandler negotiations with the Chairman will be conducted under a shower of hosannas and rose petals?

give me odds people!!!!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Reinsdorf is far from a lousy negotiator.

A lousy negotiator doesn't get the deal done, he blows it and the other party goes elsewhere to make a deal. A lousy negotiator doesn't make his company money, he loses if for them (The biggest criticism of the Bulls is that they are so profitable). A lousy negotiator doesn't bring 6 championships to his organization, he overpays guys and usually goes by the name of Isiah Thomas.

And how can you not love the way Scott May sticks to his guns? We could win 9 of the next 10 NBA Championships, and he would be right here with a strong, vocal "we would have won 10 out of 10 if Reinsdorf didn't own the club".


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> A lousy negotiator doesn't get the deal done, he blows it and the other party goes elsewhere to make a deal.


Like PJAX the last time the Bulls had a decent coach. Maybe JR has learned something. Maybe not.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

I really thought these negotiations were Skiles' fault but I'm very glad that we signed him. I thought it would of been a no-brainer to resign him but apparentely it was much harder than a hand shake.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Reinsdorf is far from a lousy negotiator.
> 
> A lousy negotiator doesn't get the deal done, he blows it and the other party goes elsewhere to make a deal. A lousy negotiator doesn't make his company money, he loses if for them (The biggest criticism of the Bulls is that they are so profitable). A lousy negotiator doesn't bring 6 championships to his organization, he overpays guys and usually goes by the name of Isiah Thomas.


Beyond looking at the fact that he got this deal done, what makes him a lousy negotiator is the fact that history has shown how getting deals done in such an acrimonious fashion can bite the team in its arse in terms of getting future deals done(refer to the failure of the 2000 free agent chase). The truly good negotiators can get favorable deals done without always needing these ugly public dramas play out.

In regards to the 6 titles thing, I've already said that I give Reinsdorf very little credit for that.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Dancing Bananas and Cheers to all. I'm so happy we can progress with the offseason. This is the best case news. 

It seems the thrashing North doled out may have played a role in all of this. Skiles says he had the phone conversation with Jerry at Noon. He got off the radio around 11:45. 

As North would say, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Not to worry, TB#1. Things could be a lot worse.
> 
> You could be one of the Chicago area writers who took dozens of little, medium, and big swings at Skiles this week, bringing up everything from his quitting episodes to DUI charge in an attempt to paint him as a greedy malcontent the Bulls should be happy to be rid of.
> 
> ...


I'm with you Scott. This was just weird, tense and terse when it didn't have to be. The resigning of Michael Jordan and now Scott Skiles was done with a scoff, not with a smile. Yuck.

So this was better than we thought it would be this morning but perhaps worse than we thought it would be last week. Skiles is certainly not my favorite coach, but on the other hand I'm also breathing a sigh of relief that we didn't tread out some cheaply obtained rookie coach bound to lead us back into the basement. Whether you like Skiles or not, he is clearly capable of progress.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Illstate2 said:


> Beyond looking at the fact that he got this deal done, what makes him a lousy negotiator is the fact that history has shown how getting deals done in such an acrimonious fashion can bite the team in its arse in terms of getting future deals done(refer to the failure of the 2000 free agent chase). The truly good negotiators can get favorable deals done without always needing these ugly public dramas play out.
> 
> In regards to the 6 titles thing, I've already said that I give Reinsdorf very little credit for that.


Rosie Perez would say,

"You know Billy, sometimes when you lose, you really win. And Sometimes when you win, you really lose."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It was in response to your earlier posts, saying Paxson had to live within the limits placed on him by Reinsdorf. Suggesting that Paxson had no ability to get the deal done.
> 
> So when Skiles calls Reinsdorf directly and gets it done, people jump all over the "Paxson got it done!" line.
> 
> FWIW


Well, I don't recall reacting by saying "Pax got it done!", so I don't know what your point is, FWIW.

EDIT: The general point I was trying to make is that Pax has to work within the scope of his authority. He can lobby hard for a broader scope of authority, but in the end, it's JR's call as to what he can and cannot offer. I do believe that Pax did the best with what he was given here. However, it seems obvious that Skiles still needed to deal with JR. It sounds like JR wasn't offering anything greater or substantially greater than Pax offered, but more that for Skiles' own peace of mind that he needed to have the owner's vote of confidence. So, when you make these unreasonable demands that amount to, "Pax get it done no matter what," it appears that that might not have been possible in this situation. Skiles wanted validation from JR himself, which is something Pax can't give.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Illstate2 said:


> Beyond looking at the fact that he got this deal done, what makes him a lousy negotiator is the fact that history has shown how getting deals done in such an acrimonious fashion can bite the team in its arse in terms of getting future deals done(refer to the failure of the 2000 free agent chase). The truly good negotiators can get favorable deals done without always needing these ugly public dramas play out.
> 
> In regards to the 6 titles thing, I've already said that I give Reinsdorf very little credit for that.


I don't think anyone will defend Jerry or give him credit for anything. As far as I'm concerned I also won't give him any credit for Skiles. He paid the slightest amount more (1-2 M a year) to not look like a complete idiot because there is 0% chance we could match what we did this year with a NEW (not different, there are other good coaches) coach. When you compare this to what players get paid I really don't see how Skiles is not worth it.

The onlt credit he gets from me is hiring Paxson.

I will have nothing else good to say until 08' when all of our young guys have been resigned for way over the cap. He is a owner and when it comes to judging an owner there is only 2 things you look for

Does he bring in good management? and does he shell out dough for a winning team?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The morning after



> "Only hours after critical remarks by adviser Keith Glass appeared to have signaled a short career for his client in Chicago, Skiles and the team agreed in principle to a four-year contract extension. "I had a couple sleepless nights, but I'm really happy about how it turned out," said Skiles, who led the Bulls this season to their first playoff appearance in seven years. "I can't say that I'm really happy to be here the next four years, because in this business, you better not utter those words. But I'm happy to continue here and work with (general manager) John (Paxson) and the guys." Daily Southtown
> 
> "Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but according to a source, the team agreed to guarantee the final year of its recent four-year, $16.75 million offer in return for considerations that were not immediately known. "Ultimately, the number of years on the extension was important to Scott," Paxson said. "We accommodated him with that in our last offer. He will get paid well. It's in the line with some of the best coaches in the league. He has earned it. He has done wonders for our franchise to get character and hard work back. That's important to me." Daily Southtown
> 
> ...


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Wow, I was out last night and missed the deal when it happened. This might be the first time ever that the Red Eye has taught me anything of worth in my morning commute in its entire history. Well, other than when I heard about Tom and Katie, y'know...

I'm thrilled. I never really knew which side of the fence to stand...ScottMay made a compelling case against Reinsorf and I knew there was something fishy coming from the organization if Skiles really felt miffed. He'd have been honest had he really just wanted out...but he and Glass sure rose a stink during the negotiations. I came away yesterday with a bad taste in my mouth regarding the whole thing...I felt the organization was being impossibly stubborn and I felt Skiles was being impossibly childish. The only person who never looked bad was Paxson...and it's entirely possible the organization set it up this way from the start. Conspiracy theory aside...I'm happy, Scott and the Bulls seem happy, and hopefully Tyson and Eddy and Chris are happy. 

Let's. Go. Bulls!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I was gone all day yesterday. Was not online from 7 am until now.

I am happy that Skiles accepted the offere. Thank you Glass for causing such an uproar. It took Skiles acting on his own to seal the deal. 

I would not have been completly dejected had Scott been a lame duck coach next season. There are other capable coaches. But since he is back, it will be easier on the players. They will not have to learn another new system, yet again!


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

BealeFarange said:


> ...I came away yesterday with a bad taste in my mouth regarding the whole thing...I felt the organization was being impossibly stubborn and I felt Skiles was being impossibly childish. The only person who never looked bad was Paxson...and it's entirely possible the organization set it up this way from the start.
> 
> Let's. Go. Bulls!


Good summary. Interesting conspiracy theory. Paxson sure played this one out "the right way".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Nice to see this thing worked out. I’m very happy to see Skiles back for a long while. 

The craziness of the last few days had the old Reinsdorfian feel to it… but he gets deserved credit for forking over the long term deal that Skiles was looking for. I’m still not sure what the problem really was… seemed like an ego thing more than anything. Looks like Skiles blinked, kneeled, kissed the ring and the deal was done. Works for me since I think he’s the man to lead this team.

Step one is done. Two seven foot steps remain.

Its kind of sad to see so many turn on Skiles the last few days. Many of the more vocal and caustic “right way” advocates were once again notably quiet during the whole ordeal… except for after the signing of course… then there were immediate posts.

I thought the guy deserved a big raise and that he’s one of the better coaches in the league… especially for this team… and that’s coming a long way for me. Strange to see so many of the Skiles supporters when I disliked him turn so quickly. Does not take much to cease being “right” seemingly.

I’m glad the insanity didn’t lead to a bad decision being made and cooler heads prevailed. Perhaps Paxson was the cool head in the middle… trying hard to keep both sides from walking away. If that’s true he did a good job.

There was no reason for this to be as ugly as it was. The end result is good.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nice to see this thing worked out. I’m very happy to see Skiles back for a long while.
> 
> The craziness of the last few days had the old Reinsdorfian feel to it… but he gets deserved credit for forking over the long term deal that Skiles was looking for. I’m still not sure what the problem really was… seemed like an ego thing more than anything. Looks like Skiles blinked, kneeled, kissed the ring and the deal was done. Works for me since I think he’s the man to lead this team.
> 
> ...


I'll assume I'm not one of the "caustic" Right way types in your eyes, even if I am somewhat vocal.

But I will say that Skiles had a known weakness from the beginning. That weakness was what made the "wrong way" types hate him so much in the beginning. He was a "my way or highway" kind of guy. They were afraid he would go overboard, alienate everybody, and we'd go down in flames worse than we had seen in the past six years.

Didn't happen, the "wrong way" types are now convinced that Skiles is the one. But Skiles' weakness, admitted from the beginning, began to pop up in these negotiations. He displayed a certain amount of emotional immaturity, and "if it's not growing, cut it off!" type mentality in this process. It made some people nervous. Is this guy going to be able to keep it together for four years (and very reasonable, nonBulls sycophants like Mike Imrem are still saying this)? These were the concerns I saw addressed regarding Skiles, although I must admit, I didn't have the stomach to churn through all of the stuff that was being generated in the past 48 hours. 

As I have said elsewhere, I think Paxson had no doubts about Skiles' abilities to run the team. But he should have had doubts about Skiles' ability to work in a team toward a common goal. The negotiation process was the test. In Pax's eyes, he passed, and welcome aboard, Scottie, for the long haul! I don't think Skiles will hold it against anyone. Eddy and Tyson might think twice about playing games with Pax, but on the other hand, have hope for a fair deal. And others in other offices might take notice, and be a little gun shy at trying to snooker him. I have a suspicion that this worked out better than we could have hoped. But who knows? Time will tell.

For my part, Paxson worked this out, "the right way". He said so himself! (see KC's article) :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Illstate2 said:


> In regards to the 6 titles thing, I've already said that I give Reinsdorf very little credit for that.


You certainly aren't alone in that sense, although I can't understand why people feel that way.

How can you give JR very little credit for the titles and lots of blame when we aren't winning? I will never understand that, it seems extremely hypocritical. 

As I already pointed out, if JR is so bad, why do Pax and Skiles and everyone else work for him? There are 29 other NBA teams out there, they could go to one of them.

I'd love to see what would have happened around here if some of our posters were Patriots fans. They just went through a long, drawn out contract re-negotiation with a QB who has never lost a playoff game and is a 2-time Super Bowl MVP. It got ugly at times but the deal got done. I'm assuming there are lots of people who would hate Robert Kraft as much as they hate Reinsdorf, since "ugly negotiations" are obviously a reason to hate an owner, despite how many Championships your team has won under his watch.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

bullsville said:


> You certainly aren't alone in that sense, although I can't understand why people feel that way.
> 
> How can you give JR very little credit for the titles and lots of blame when we aren't winning? I will never understand that, it seems extremely hypocritical.


I give him little credit for those titles because I'd rank Jordan as the top reason the Bulls won those titles, and Reinsdorf had nothing to do with bringing him to the team. I'll give JR some credit for bringing in Krause, but I'll even say that I don't doubt that Rod Thorn could've managed to put together a champ based on his success in New Jersey. Krause did bring in some good peices around Jordan, but before you can call him a genious for that, I think you'd have to take into account his spotty drafting record. 

Maybe I should rephrase my statement from "I give very little credit to JR" , to "there are other parties whom I belive played a far geater role than he did".

If you look at what JR has done as a sports owner outside of having Jordan, its pretty sad. The White Sox for a number of years have barely been able to give away tickets, which has made them basically a small market team unable to keep players together or bid for new players to make them a consistent winner. And the Bulls prior to this year posted the worse 6 year record in the history of the league. 




bullsville said:


> As I already pointed out, if JR is so bad, why do Pax and Skiles and everyone else work for him? There are 29 other NBA teams out there, they could go to one of them.


Well, if you haven't noticed, JR seems to hire guys that aren't exactly the hot, in demand candidates around the league. I haven't seen him hire any name guys. I doubt that Pax could've went to another team with his radio color commentary and one year as an assistant coach credentials and been given a job as the team's GM.

And its been well documented that people weren't exactly beating down Skiles' door prior to him being hired here.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Step one is done. Two seven foot steps remain.
> 
> Its kind of sad to see so many turn on Skiles the last few days. Many of the more vocal and caustic “right way” advocates were once again notably quiet during the whole ordeal… except for after the signing of course… then there were immediate posts.
> 
> I thought the guy deserved a big raise and that he’s one of the better coaches in the league… especially for this team… and that’s coming a long way for me. Strange to see so many of the Skiles supporters when I disliked him turn so quickly. Does not take much to cease being “right” seemingly.


Completely agree with the two 7-foot step comments.

I was in the minority of those that remained on the completely neutral "posturing" side right on top of the fence, with the majority of people standing on one side or the other regarding the Skiles situation.

For some reason on these boards, if you're not in the "Fire Paxson/Skiles" club you are a Skiles supporter and Paxson lover as I have often been labeled. I argued at the time of our 0-9 start that Skiles had not been given a fair shot as of yet (first full season with the team/completely revamped roster/4 contributing rookies).

I argued against the "Fire Skiles" club, because it seemed to me like a completely kneejerk reaction to an 0-9 start. However, had you fired Skiles at that time look at what would not have happened (47 wins). This was my point being against the fire Skiles club in the first place. It's the whole show me first before I like you attitude. How can anyone show you first if you never give them a shot in the first place (i.e. fire them).

That said, he has not shown enough to me to warrant a four-year extension. This season and the way he got the players to play was great, no doubt. However, I don't see him as a great playoff coach, and have my doubts that this is the guy that can make us a contender, even with contending talent. Being of this mindset, I was skeptical in locking Skiles up for four full years (I would have done 2 or 3 definately). I guess I'm saying that I'm still skeptical on Skiles, four guaranteed seasons is a little much, but I am definately willing to give him a shot to show us what he can do.

If this makes me into a Skiles supporter to off the bandwagon as the "Fire Skiles" club suggest, then so be it. I post this because I know some of us other labeled "Skiles Supporters" who you claim have been "notably quiet" are feeling the same way.

This is why I have never joined any "clubs" on this board, even the TBs Eddy Curry club (of whom you all know I wish the best). Point being, why must there always be labels?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Illstate2 said:


> I give him little credit for those titles because I'd rank Jordan as the top reason the Bulls won those titles, and Reinsdorf had nothing to do with bringing him to the team. I'll give JR some credit for bringing in Krause, but I'll even say that I don't doubt that Rod Thorn could've managed to put together a champ based on his success in New Jersey. Krause did bring in some good peices around Jordan, but before you can call him a genious for that, I think you'd have to take into account his spotty drafting record.


Well, JR did buy the team during MJs rookie year, and he was smart enough to never trade him. Also, MJ was a free agent after the 1990 season (that's when his rookie contract expired), he could have left but JR got him to sign an extension for another 6 years. Then managed to sign him for two more after that.

Isn't his job to retain his best employees and keep the company successful? That's really all an owner has to do, and JR did a great job of it in the 1990's. When he bought the team, his greatest mission was to keep MJ in Chicago long-term and put the pieces around him to win Championships. 

Mission accomplished.

Although you are right, it just seems too convienent to me for the anti-Krause and anti-JR crowd to discount their roles by saying "they had nothing to do with bringing MJ to the team". It's technically correct, but it also plays a huge disservice to Pippen and PJax and all the others who also played a huge part in those 6 rings. More of an excuse than a valid reason IMHO. 



> Maybe I should rephrase my statement from "I give very little credit to JR" , to "there are other parties whom I belive played a far geater role than he did".


Agreed 100%, for one the players deserve more credit, they did the playing. I just can't see how JR gets no credit from many, even some "the Bulls won in spite of him"?



> Well, if you haven't noticed, JR seems to hire guys that aren't exactly the hot, in demand candidates around the league. I haven't seen him hire any name guys. I doubt that Pax could've went to another team with his radio color commentary and one year as an assistant coach credentials and been given a job as the team's GM.
> 
> And its been well documented that people weren't exactly beating down Skiles' door prior to him being hired here.


You mean guys like PJax? And Skiles? And Pax? And Doug Collins? 

Who cares where he finds them originally, they stay, don't they? They succeed exceedingly, don't they?

Isn't it his job to find competent candidates? You can't complain about where he finds the guys when they do a great job *and then proceed to resign with him*.

If anything, that's a sign of his ability to spot and retain talent.

Jeez, I was never a big fan of ownership in general per se, I just never understood the hatred because we won so much. But the more I discuss JR here the last few days, the more I am starting to see that he has been a pretty successful owner for the Bulls (from my view as a fan of the team).

As for the Sox, not a fan but IMO a huge part of their problem is what you mentioned, they can't give away tickets. I'm not sure why that is, maybe it's because Comiskey is not in a very good neighboorhood and people don't want to go there at night. Not me personally, I've never been to a day game at Comiskey (only night games), but certainly there are people who fit that bill.

If I were a Sox fan, I might well have a different opinion of JR. All I know of his ownership is the Bulls, though, and I'm fairly freaking happy with the way things have gone there. :biggrin:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its kind of sad to see so many turn on Skiles the last few days. Many of the more vocal and caustic “right way” advocates were once again notably quiet during the whole ordeal… except for after the signing of course… then there were immediate posts.


I guess I can usually be considered a "right way" advocate, and I was disappointed. So disappointed, in fact, that I posted "I'm disappointed" and then stopped posting for a while. Does this make me "noticably quiet"? I think it just shows that I was waiting for more information before foaming at the mouth.

I, on the other hand, noticed that many of you "wrong way" folks didn't have any problem posting up a storm before all of the facts were out.

Can't say I'm surprised. Will this be the next "Crawford Update Thread"?


----------

