# Jalen Rose / Donyell Marshall



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Great vision Pax.

Raptors 3-0

Rose today
7-16 FG
1-1FT
8 rbs
2 steals
1 block
3 TO
16 points

Marshall today
7-14 FG
2-2 FT
9 Rbs
1 ast
1 TO
16 points


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

The Crawford thread wasn't doing the trick, huh????

:grinning:


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Great vision Pax.




Finally, something we agree on.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> The Crawford thread wasn't doing the trick, huh????
> ...


It was off topic there 

Nice for the Toronto fans to have a winning team again.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Jalen Rose / Donyell Marshall*



> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HAHA. 0-2 vs 3-0.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Interesting that you chose this game. In the previous two games (both Toronto wins), the lines for both players were very average. It's also too early in the season for Jalen to make his grand disappearance. This team (Toronto) will make it's customary collapse right after Carter's first injury.

Was Crawford's line last night too disappointing to fuel your anti-Bull agenda?

Given the number of ex-bulls in the league, I imagine there will be at least one every night about whom we could say "In your face, Pax!". I, for one, would be interested in seeing a thread which constantly updated the season stats of all our ex-players. Until then, could we at least post the bad games of our exs along with the good?

*Jalen*
vs. Houston 3-10 (10-10FT) 3rbs 4ast 17pts in 40 minutes
vs. Detroit 5-8 (0-0FT) 2rbs 4ast 11pts in 32 minutes

*Donyell*
vs. Houston 4-11 (0-0FT) 4rbs 0ast 9pts in 27 minutes
vs. Detroit 0-3 (0-0FT) 4rbs 2 ast 0pts in 18 minutes

Let me also go on record that I would have liked to keep Donyell, despite the numbers in his first two games.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Pax traded them for next to nothing. People on this board claimed that Rose was a "cancer", useless, whatever.... you name it.

Obviously teams can win with him.
Michigan did.
Indiana did.
Toronto is.

Meanwhile the Bulls still suck.

Compare Jalen and Jamal's lines to who we are starting at the #2.

Someday, maybe, the Bulls will be good. 

Someday, maybe.

EDIT:
You will never hear me say that Jalen is a star. Its silly to expect that from him. But he is an above average basketball player. Supposedly... we're building via the "Piston's Model".... we need a bunch of competant basketball players. Not a bunch of Paxson crap.


----------



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

We already had Marshall and Rose and BTW the team sucked.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> We already had Marshall and Rose and BTW the team sucked.


Just like we had Brand, Artest and Miller.

The players are not the problem LOB.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Just like we had Brand, Artest and Miller.
> ...


I liked Brand, Artest and Miller's games, never a fan of Jalen Rose. Sorry


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> I liked Brand, Artest and Miller's games, never a fan of Jalen Rose. Sorry


I'm not a huge fan either. But he is competent and can help NBA teams win.

I want the Bulls to win.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> But he is competent and can help NBA teams win.
> 
> I want the Bulls to win.


 He is also paid to be more than competent. Even though AD's deal is just a year shorter, it was a good move. 

Rose for the money, no good. Rose as team star also no good. Rose as leader of men.... has him giving Erob a hug for quitting on his team.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Interesting that you chose this game. In the previous two games (both Toronto wins), the lines for both players were very average. It's also too early in the season for Jalen to make his grand disappearance. This team (Toronto) will make it's customary collapse right after Carter's first injury.


Thtas the funny thing in the first 2 win of the season Vince was not a big factor is our Bench the big factor .

And good luck having a max contract player on the bench (A. Davis). for the other side Rose has been a great leader. and Donny even if he's a FA after this season he has great trade value more than JYD. for example.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

As some point, contractual dollars are a factor. 

If Marshall gets the MLE as a FA this off-season, then Rose, Crawford and Marshall are going to be paid about $30M bucks in 20006-07.

Maybe a team like the Knicks are fine with this type of performance\$$$ ratio but in my book, *it's way too much money* to have tied up on three average starters\good bench players. And calling these guys average starters in the league may be generous.

Without a surefire superstar on the roster, it's important to keep some fiscal flexibility.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)




----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> As some point, contractual dollars are a factor.
> 
> If Marshall gets the MLE as a FA this off-season, then Rose, Crawford and Marshall are going to be paid about $30M bucks in 20006-07.
> ...


I agree. Bulls could not afford to dish out that kind of money to Rose thru 2007 just for a losing team. And yes, I think it's worth having Antonio Davis for 1 year less if it gives us a chance to sign someone in the summer of 2006.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. Bulls could not afford to dish out that kind of money to Rose thru 2007 just for a losing team. And yes, I think it's worth having Antonio Davis for 1 year less if it gives us a chance to sign someone in the summer of 2006.


Like what happen with T-Mac ?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> As some point, contractual dollars are a factor.
> 
> If Marshall gets the MLE as a FA this off-season, then Rose, Crawford and Marshall are going to be paid about $30M bucks in 20006-07.
> ...


justifying trading away players last year because of what they are going to be paid 3 years from now is kind of scared thinking ...especially for a franchise that clears 50 mil. in profits every year(so they really are the kind of team that can spend like the knicks do).

especially when that kind of thinking is a virtual cop out on ever spending $ ...if a player is that good (a superstar) no team in their right mind would let them go , so the bulls will have to draft one.

but almost all of the franchise talents come out before they are 20 because of the way the cba is constructed, they have to get their years in to truly get paid , so any team that has a superstar basically either has to trade their own for him or develop one from a player who only has the talent but no where near the production.

it leaves the bulls in perpetual rebuilding or worse a 30 win team forever , not bad enough to get the difference maker , not good enough to attract one in free agency whether they have the money to spend or not.

no team wins playing it safe, it means the bulls will have to rely on being extremely lucky , i am not very comfortable with that.

but i guess you are.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

AD = Rose.

Marshall gets the MLE.

The name of this thread is Rose/Marshall.... not Rose/Marshall/Crawford.

Its shocking that you support this loser GM. We're talking ENTIRE SEASONS being written off for minimal, minimal future gain.

I'm not sure what kind of fan some of you are.... but hanging your hat on "fiscal responsibility" is really, really lame. We're not even freeing up enough space to make a difference.

A GOOD FREE AGENT WILL NOT WANT TO COME PLAY FOR THIS ORGANIZATION UNLESS WE “OVERPAY”.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SpeakerBoxxX</b>!
> 
> 
> Like what happen with T-Mac ?


I'm MUCH more confident in Paxson's ability to attract free agents to the Bulls in comparison to Jerry Krause. I know Krause was blamed for things that weren't his fault...but there is no doubting the negative perception that free agents had of Krause. Just ask Charles Barkley. 

You guys think cap space is meaningless? Look at the Miami Heat. Just 2 years ago they are one of the league's worst teams, but they have cap space in the summer of 2003. Lamar Odom takes their money and he leads them to the playoffs. Odom then becomes the centerpiece for the Shaq trade, and Heat now have a good chance at making the Finals this year. So don't tell me cap space is meaningless...you just have to be smart about using it.

If we're able to get someone good in 2006, it will be totally worth the extra year of capspace. Btw, Peja has his eyes on Chicago, and vice-versa. And you know what? I can wait the 2 years to get there because our core talent base is another 2 years away from winning. If we combine our current guys with a bigtime player in 2006, then we'll be looking at an amazing team, possibly championship worthy like the Heat are now.

It may sound pathetic that we're talking about being good 2 years from now, but unfortunately Krause left the Bulls in tough shape upon his departure. Bad contracts, bad players. Never a good combination. It'll take us just a few more years to get there, but we're moving in the right direction.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm MUCH more confident in Paxson's ability to attract free agents to the Bulls in comparison to Jerry Krause. I know Krause was blamed for things that weren't his fault...but there is no doubting the negative perception that free agents had of Krause. Just ask Charles Barkley.
> ...


And you think Pax and Skiles will take a chance on a guy like Odom?

He's one of the 50% of NBA players that Pax and Skiles don't want anything to do with.

Blow all the cap space on a guy known for getting high? I don't think so.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> It may sound pathetic that we're talking about being good 2 years from now, but unfortunately Krause left the Bulls in tough shape upon his departure. Bad contracts, bad players. Never a good combination. It'll take us just a few more years to get there, but we're moving in the right direction.


Yet Toronto wins with these "bad contract, bad players."

Nope. The problem is Paxson, IMO.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet Toronto wins with these "bad contract, bad players."
> ...



Ya, the Jalen Rose lead Raptors. :laugh:


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet Toronto wins with these "bad contract, bad players."
> ...


I would say Vince and Bosh have more to do with it.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> I would say Vince and Bosh have more to do with it.



One would think. 

According to him, Jalen and Donyell are the "main compenents". :|


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> no team wins playing it safe, it means the bulls will have to rely on being extremely lucky , i am not very comfortable with that.


In my book, overpaying for average players is playing it safe. And who has won by doing this?

The Knicks are a perfect example that overplaying for average players is not a winning strategy.

By the way, you told me the Knick were going to be much improved this year. What happened?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, the Jalen Rose lead Raptors. :laugh:


Did I say Jalen is the leader?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> In my book, overpaying for average players is playing it safe. And who has won by doing this?


Please.

Signing Crawford was the risk. Letting him go for nothing was playing it safe. 

Not committing $$$ for the sunnier days tomorrow is playing it safe.

Smugly ignoring talented high school players to sign "proven" NCAA stars is playing it safe.

Paxson does not take risks. He does build losing teams.

And dumping Rose and Marshall for AD is just plain stupid.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> I would say Vince and Bosh have more to do with it.



And I might agree with you. Vince is clearly the leader on that team.

I'm not saying Jalen is a star... just that he's a good NBA player.

Now that Hinrich is developing and Deng looks great this team could be an OK squad in the east if we still had Jalen and Yell. They would no longer have to carry the team on their backs alone, which I don't think they are capable of.

Once again... enjoy the pile of crap Pax has built for this season. He's the Tim Floyd of NBA GMs.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And you think Pax and Skiles will take a chance on a guy like Odom?
> ...


Who said anything about the Bulls signing Odom? My point was that the Heat used their capspace wisely by signing someone who fit into their team's goals, and that it paid dividends. They make the playoffs, and are able to trade for the top center in the game. The Bulls might very well have a similar opportunity once AD comes off the books, which is one year earlier than Rose. And like I said, I think that extra year of capspace was a big bonus of trading Rose, among other things.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Please.
> ...


Pax indicates the promise of cap space tomorrow is worth not committing to guys like JC today.

How is this not a risk?


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Please.
> ...


we didn't let Jamal go for nothing, so far Othella and Griffin have played good basketball for this years team. To date Othella has played better than Tyson.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet Toronto wins with these "bad contract, bad players."
> ...


I'll say it again...The Raptors' record was WORSE after trading for Rose and Marshall. They were not a good team last year. Where do you get the impression that they are on a winning team? 

They're off to a good start now, but you can hardly attribute that success to Rose and Marshall. Rafer Alston is playing like an all-star right now. Chris Bosh and (surprisingly) Loren Woods have been a huge boost as well. Vince Carter is healthy and playing well. Rose and Marshall are playing complementary roles right now, which is exactly what they are suited for. The minute you try to make Jalen Rose your "go-to guy" is the minute you're heading back to the lottery.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Who said anything about the Bulls signing Odom? My point was that the Heat used their capspace wisely by signing someone who fit into their team's goals, and that it paid dividends. They make the playoffs, and are able to trade for the top center in the game. The Bulls might very well have a similar opportunity once AD comes off the books, which is one year earlier than Rose. And like I said, I think that extra year of capspace was a big bonus of trading Rose, among other things.


I said "a guy like Odom."

OK, let's say we're in this mythical future time a couple years from now when we have r this cap space.

One of Curry or Chandler will likely be gone. 

We only have 1 1st round pick in the next 2 years.

Hinrich and Deng develop... Gordon becomes solid. Maybe 1 one of them is star caliber.

Why does someone want to come play here?

You have the available free agent pool in front of you. 

Take half of them away since Pax and Skiles have the attitudes that they do.

Now what are we left with? What star is going to choose to most likely take less money (if they are good) to come play here? Why would they choose to play here?

Because they like Paxson but they didn't like Krause? Really?

We’re going to have to take a player that another team is willing to dump. Those are not your NBA stars. Pax will have to take a risk with the cap space.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Why would the free agent have to take less money? We're talking about having 8-10 million in caproom then if Chandler and Curry are near maxed out. If one is gone, we have plenty of money to throw at someone.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I said "a guy like Odom."
> ...


Guys will want to come play here for 2 reasons: a) we have money to offer, and b) because they feel that this team is heading for big things (that's why Pippen and Gill wanted to come here last year). Assuming Curry is gone by 2006, a guy like Peja might look at our young nucleus of Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Chandler, and Gordon....and more than likely he'll like what he sees. Peja might think that with him on board, then this team becomes something special that can go deep into the playoffs. Sounds like reason enough to me. 



> Take half of them away since Pax and Skiles have the attitudes that they do.
> 
> Now what are we left with? What star is going to choose to most likely take less money (if they are good) to come play here? Why would they choose to play here?
> 
> ...


You seem to be assuming an awful lot about the kinds of players Paxson is willing to sign, and trust me you're not the only one on this board. Paxson is always talking about getting "tough players" or guys that "work hard" and are "tough mentally". Well duh, isn't that what every coach ideally wants? All this talk about getting "Pax and Skiles type players" is really taken a bit too literally. Never once did I hear Paxson actually say that he wanted Crawford out because he wasn't his type of player. Bottom line, Paxson wants guys who will help the Bulls win. Can you really blame him for not investing $70 million in a guy that had so many question marks, and couldn't help this team to more than 23 wins? (i know your answer, you don't have to answer that) I mean, where does that actually get you? If we signed Crawford and continued to lose, he just becomes another untradeable contract.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I really don't understand the point of starting a thread based on one night's stats three games into the season. This is beyond meaningless. It's clear the only reason this is around is to be inflammatory. It contributes nothing to the board. It's possible to have a thoughtful discussion about these issues, but I don't see the reason to go about it in this manner. Kukoc, do you not know that your stats are misleading and unimportant, or do you not care? If we want to look at these things in a fair way, we should look at the stats of the players since the trade and the teams' records since that point in time, although that doesn't totally address the issue either. But to start a thread that basically says, "Hey, these guys had one solid game. Pax sucks!!!" is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>! But to start a thread that basically says, "Hey, these guys had one solid game. Pax sucks!!!" is pretty ridiculous.


I love the musical chairs aspect to the whole thing. Look for a JC thread next week when the Knicks finally win a game.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Guys will want to come play here for 2 reasons: a) we have money to offer, and b) because they feel that this team is heading for big things (that's why Pippen and Gill wanted to come here last year). Assuming Curry is gone by 2006, a guy like Peja might look at our young nucleus of Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Chandler, and Gordon....and more than likely he'll like what he sees. Peja might think that with him on board, then this team becomes something special that can go deep into the playoffs. Sounds like reason enough to me.


If this is a truly great player, then why won't the team they reside on match? In most cases, they will be able to.

You have a lot of faith that a star player will choose to join a young, cold-weather, losing team.

I'd rather have a winning team now. 

Yes, I think this team would win with Rose, Marshall and Crawford.



> You seem to be assuming an awful lot about the kinds of players Paxson is willing to sign, and trust me you're not the only one on this board. Paxson is always talking about getting "tough players" or guys that "work hard" and are "tough mentally". Well duh, isn't that what every coach ideally wants? All this talk about getting "Pax and Skiles type players" is really taken a bit too literally. Never once did I hear Paxson actually say that he wanted Crawford out because he wasn't his type of player. Bottom line, Paxson wants guys who will help the Bulls win. Can you really blame him for not investing $70 million in a guy that had so many question marks, and couldn't help this team to more than 23 wins? (i know your answer, you don't have to answer that) I mean, where does that actually get you? If we signed Crawford and continued to lose, he just becomes another untradeable contract.


If you know my answer... then why bring it up?
If Pax is willing to dump solid players in return for nothing because they don't fit his mold... then how many players out there will?

Out the those remaining, how many decide to be the savior in Chicago, since if we're willing to throw our precious $$$ at them, they are probably pretty good and have plenty of other options?

Pax seems so picky... but we're going to most likely have to take a chance on a guy that was a problem where he was at before.

We'll see what happens. I don't see why it would be any different this time around than when we were asking NBA stars (or almost starts) to join Elton and Artest on a young, developing team. (krause???? really????)

note: yes, if we are far enough under the cap, we could be offering a contract to a FA for the same $$$ (assuming tax rates and year loading of the contract is = . ... not always for less. This would only be for 1 FA though... after this MAX we would likely be offering less.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I love the musical chairs aspect to the whole thing. Look for a JC thread next week when the Knicks finally win a game.


Yeah, that's an unfair practice, and it's rampant. My problem is that it is becoming increasingly hard to avoid this stuff, b/c the same discussion of the same issues seems to creep its way into every thread, regardless of whether it's on-topic or not.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Yes, I think this team would win with Rose, Marshall and Crawford.


They didn't before.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> AD = Rose.
> 
> Marshall gets the MLE.
> ...


I give you 5 stars my friend ! You are a good fan loyal to your team but not afraid to attack his weakness or really bad decisions.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, the Jalen Rose lead Raptors. :laugh:


Well he has been a important part so far in the 3-0 start. wheres Antonio Davis ?



> One would think.
> 
> According to him, Jalen and Donyell are the "main compenents".


No I dont think he mean that. They are important part the main factor for the Great Raptors start is the bench


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> I really don't understand the point of starting a thread based on one night's stats three games into the season. This is beyond meaningless. It's clear the only reason this is around is to be inflammatory. It contributes nothing to the board. It's possible to have a thoughtful discussion about these issues, but I don't see the reason to go about it in this manner. Kukoc, do you not know that your stats are misleading and unimportant, or do you not care? If we want to look at these things in a fair way, we should look at the stats of the players since the trade and the teams' records since that point in time, although that doesn't totally address the issue either. But to start a thread that basically says, "Hey, these guys had one solid game. Pax sucks!!!" is pretty ridiculous.


Its one instance. I'm not saying its statistically significant.

If I have to provide my confidence intervals to everything thats said it will take too long to post anything 

If you have any faith in the engineering department of the school that is your avatar... than it would be safe to assume that i'm not completely illiterate when it comes to numbers.  

I'm refuting the prevailing wisdom on this board that "Jalen is useless and a cancer."

If he really was useless and cancerous... then 3-0 for the Raptors would not happen when Jalen is playing heavy minutes and contributing. The uselessness and cancerous nature would prevent the Raptors from winning games. It would also have prevented the Pacers, Nuggets and Wolverines from winning games.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> They didn't before.


They also didn't have a solid 2nd year Hinrich, a fit curry, a healthy chandler, a spunky nocioni and a damn good Deng.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> Why would the free agent have to take less money? We're talking about having 8-10 million in caproom then if Chandler and Curry are near maxed out. If one is gone, we have plenty of money to throw at someone.


Really how much money you guys will have?

I start thinking Curry will ask for the Max and you guys will give him. Chandler will receive a lot money too. so how much cap room do you have after that?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Pax indicates the promise of cap space tomorrow is worth not committing to guys like JC today.
> ...


That's buying time. (and filling uncle jerry's pockets)

Its not a risk because people like you will never admit that the ex-bulls are solid players! 

"We didn't win when they were with us."
"Its really X that's winning those games for the other taam."

Its the same thing over and over and over again. 

The Raptors could go 50-32 this year with jalen getting the 2nd most minutes on the team and Marshall playing 25+... and both of them playing well... and somehow they have no affect. Its crazy!!!!!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its one instance. I'm not saying its statistically significant.
> ...


What I'm saying is that your use of one night's stats is misleading. You acknowledge that it's not statistically significant. So why use it? Just to inflame people. It certainly has nothing to do with this useless/cancer notion.

I'm not so much trying to criticize your viewpoint, which which I do partially disagree. Rather, I'm saying the way you're going about doing it is counterproductive. I don't think Jalen is a cancer. I also do not think he is useless. Even if he were both, though, that doesn't mean he could successfully drag down every team he was on. Just b/c he was on winning teams absolutely does not prove that he isn't a cancer. 

I think the point you're really trying to make is "Paxson is an idiot." Fine. You're entitled to believe that. Don't just show one night of solid games to prove it, though. I could counter with Deng's numbers and say "Paxson drafted Deng. Deng is good. Paxson is a genius!" However, my numbers wouldn't prove that Paxson is a genius any more than yours prove he is incompetent.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

The Bulls made a bog mistake when they have a great player to start rebuild but the Bulls decide "rebuild" again and Trade Brand for two HS kids. but then Pay a lot of money to a veteran (Rose) instead of keep Brand


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SpeakerBoxxX</b>!
> 
> 
> I start thinking Curry will ask for the Max and you guys will give him.


He can and may ask. However, if you currently believe that this administration is inclined to give it to him, I'm not sure what team you're looking at.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> He can and may ask. However, if you currently believe that this administration is inclined to give it to him, I'm not sure what team you're looking at.


Uh? Is the Bulls the team who trade Brand for Chandler and well this is just the post-Jordan Bulls


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SpeakerBoxxX</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh? Is the Bulls the team who trade Brand for Chandler and well this is just the post-Jordan Bulls


What does that have to do with their proclivity to hand out fat contract extensions? Nothing. 

I do, on the other hand, believe that this is the same Bulls team that half of the board consistently criticizes for being too tight on the purse strings. This is the Bulls team that many on this board criticize for trading Jamal Crawford because they didn't want to pay him. This is the same Bulls team that many of the same people criticize for trading Jalen and Donyell in order to get some cap space. So don't act like I'm an idiot for thinking that it seems dubious to say that Curry is going to get a max deal from the Bulls.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

How about Hinrichs, Deng, Nocioni,, even Harringtons stats.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Toronto is now 3-0.

Last game:
Rose 7-16, 8 reb, 2 steals, 16 points
Marshall 7-14, 9 reb, 16 points

Previous game:
Rose 5-8, 2 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 11 pts
Marshall 4 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 0 pts

Previous game:
Rose 3-10, 10-10 FT, 3 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 17 pts
Marshall 4-11, 4 reb, 1 stl, 9 pts


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that your use of one night's stats is misleading. You acknowledge that it's not statistically significant. So why use it? Just to inflame people. It certainly has nothing to do with this useless/cancer notion.
> ...


The only point I'm trying to make right now is that Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall can be key contributors on a winning team.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with their proclivity to hand out fat contract extensions? Nothing.
> ...


i'M TALKING ABOUT DECISIONS


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SpeakerBoxxX</b>!
> 
> 
> i'M TALKING ABOUT DECISIONS


Just by typing in caps doesn't make the points any better. Paxson, if anything, is known for being stingy. Therefore, it is unlikely that he, as of this point, is likely to max out Curry. You can't just argue that Pax makes bad decisions, therefore he will max out Curry. Well, I guess you can, and you are, but it's incorrect.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The only point I'm trying to make right now is that Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall can be key contributors on a winning team.


I too believe they can be successful role players. I don't think Jalen's lack of success here was b/c he was garbage, but rather b/c he was asked to do more than he was realistically capable of. But as far as a "winning team," I don't think three games into the season that is an appropriate label for the Raps. We'll see as the season progresses. However, considering how they did last year after the trade, the "winning team" thing is a misnomer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> I too believe they can be successful role players. I don't think Jalen's lack of success here was b/c he was garbage, but rather b/c he was asked to do more than he was realistically capable of. But as far as a "winning team," I don't think three games into the season that is an appropriate label for the Raps. We'll see as the season progresses. However, considering how they did last year after the trade, the "winning team" thing is a misnomer.


Rose won with the Nuggets and Pacers. I contend that this year he'll win with the Raptors.

Just like you said... and I agree with... Rose alone can't turn a team around. 

Rose teamed with some other good players... wins.

Why didn't Rose have better teammates around him here?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Rose won with the Nuggets and Pacers. I contend that this year he'll win with the Raptors.
> ...



I think Rose can win, but I don't think he'll be the reason why the Raps succeed or fail this year. I think he'll be a contributor, yes, but not the decisive factor. That's true of most players, though. Basketball is, of course, a team sport. 

Why didn't Rose have better players when he was here? Maybe I'll give you the answer you don't want. Jerry Krause.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Too bad Pax didn't find a way to make this happen. The guys mentioned in the deal aren't here anymore and we pretty much got NOTHING for them. Would you rather have Walker's expiring deal or AD's?



> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> Why didn't Rose have better players when he was here? Maybe I'll give you the answer you don't want. Jerry Krause.


From ESPN.com, 6/21/03:

Boston Celtics
On the Block: Antoine Walker
The Skinny: Danny Ainge claims he won't shop Walker. But that hasn't stopped him from listening to offers. Many GMs believe Walker is available, and several teams are interested. <B>The hottest rumor had the Celtics talking with the Bulls about the above-mentioned deal for Williams, Fizer and Marshall.</B> With Williams' future in doubt, there's another possibility that might make some sense: Walker and the No. 20 pick to the Raptors for Antonio Davis and the No. 4 pick in the draft. The Celtics are pretty high on Chris Bosh.

Chicago Bulls
On the Block: Jay Williams/Jamal Crawford?, Marcus Fizer, Jalen Rose
The Skinny: No one was in a better position to pull off a blockbuster trade on draft night than the Bulls. However, that all changed with Williams' accident. At the time, the Bulls were positioning themselves to land a veteran, sweet-shooting small forward with either their No. 7 pick or with a combination of one of their two point guards and Fizer. Now, the team is back to square one until they get an idea of the extent of Williams injuries. Right now, things don't look good, which is a shame. A lot of people believed that Williams would have a breakout year this year -- especially if he was moved to a different team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Too bad Pax didn't find a way to make this happen. The guys mentioned in the deal aren't here anymore and we pretty much got NOTHING for them. Would you rather have Walker's expiring deal or AD's?
> 
> 
> ...


What's your argument here?

Edit:
Re-read and I see what you're saying. Yeah, Walker's expiring deal is more attractive, though this by itself doesn't turn the team around. However, I would stress highly that these sorts of trade rumors are fairly unreliable and it's hard to know what happens behind closed doors. If, however, the deal was on the table, then I say go for it. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but if the deal was there, I would say it was a mistake not to go for it. This is consistent with my thoughts on Pax, though. I love his drafts, but am so/so on his trades (other than the trade to get the #7 pick this year, most notably).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> That's buying time. (and filling uncle jerry's pockets)


The Bulls payroll this year would be roughly the same with Rose, Marshall and JC so how does this fill Reinsdorf's pockets?



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The Raptors could go 50-32 this year with jalen getting the 2nd most minutes on the team and Marshall playing 25+... and both of them playing well... and somehow they have no affect. Its crazy!!!!!


If the Raptors win 50 this year, you might be on to something. How about we give them more than 3 home games?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I'm refuting the prevailing wisdom on this board that "Jalen is useless and a cancer."


k4e no offense, but, you seem to be the one who is _constantly_ bringing it up. 

and in the process the tone is increasingly strident and whiny. your views are well known on the board but this thread seems like beating a dead horse.

can we move on? or is that just not possible? 





:dead:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> k4e no offense, but, you seem to be the one who is _constantly_ bringing it up.
> ...


That's why I started this thread.... If you want to talk about jalen/yell and their success on the Raptors... this is the place... if not... you won't be bothered.

As for moving on... a recurring problem with this team is its inability to get the most out of good players. Jalen/Donyell is just one example of many... and as a Bulls fan... its something that I think should be discussed.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The only point I'm trying to make right now is that Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall can be key contributors on a winning team.


Well, that's exactly why the Bulls went out and got them in the first place. Marshall did it with Utah, and Rose did it with Indiana. The thing is, they couldn't do it with the Bulls. That's why they were traded. It was time for a change, and their trade value was only going to drop the longer we kept them.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79, I like your arguments and I couldn't agree more. 5-star rating for you. 

It's funny how the more I think about why the Bulls are bad, the more it comes back to a Jerry Krause decision. And that makes perfect sense because Paxson has only been GM for a little over a year and a half! I know some people disagree with some of his moves, but let's be real here. EVERY GM makes moves that some will agree with and some will disagree with. Does that make him a bad GM? No way! That goes for Krause, Paxson, everyone. Sometimes your GM just has to be the bad guy. You don't make friends in this business. Why do you think everyone in Chicago hated Krause even though he built a team that won 6 championships? Krause was not a bad GM...he just made the wrong decisions at the wrong time, and that's why he "re-signed" (aka fired under the table...just my theory :grinning: ). Considering the mess that Paxson inherited, I think he's done a pretty good job. Some people act like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni were nothing to write home about.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> If the Raptors win 50 this year, you might be on to something. How about we give them more than 3 home games?


Against team like Detroit Houston and Blazers dont forget that.

and its better than 0-2 1 home and 1 in the road


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SpeakerBoxxX</b>!
> 
> 
> Against team like Detroit Houston and Blazers dont forget that.
> ...


No one on this board is calling the Bulls a 50 win team, either.

What's the bar for success for the Raptors this year? 50 wins? Playoffs? Or just better than the Bulls?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> No one on this board is calling the Bulls a 50 win team, either.
> ...


How about better than their record last season?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm not a "Rose is a cancer" guy. He's a nice player and you can win with him. He is, however, grossly overpaid.

Krause's plan was that Rose would be the veteran star who would help make the Chandler-Curry experiment work. As the 2003-04 season unfolded, the Bulls' defense just about made Paxson want to jump out of his skybox. Rose, who certainly has never been given much consideration for the NBA All-Defensive Team was NOT the whole problem. Neither Chandler nor Curry were developing defensively. Marshall was the team's best defensive big man by a wide margin and he had never previously been mistaken for a defensive specialist.

Paxson got two things in the Rose Trade. He cut a year off his max contract commitment (Rose vs Davis) and he got 2 defensive-minded big men (Davis and JYD) to pick up the Chandler-Curry slack.

Insofar as winning games, neither way worked. In general, if you're going to lose anyway, you might as well improve your cap situation, since it may help you down the road. For instance, after this season, Davis's expiring contract may make him a more valuable trading asset than Rose (with 2 years remaining) would have been.

All in all, I don't lament the loss of Rose. I don't think he's a good fit for this team...too much of a "star mentality" without a true "star payoff." I miss Marshall, though. Wish we still had 'em.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> jnrjr79, I like your arguments and I couldn't agree more. 5-star rating for you.
> 
> It's funny how the more I think about why the Bulls are bad, the more it comes back to a Jerry Krause decision. And that makes perfect sense because Paxson has only been GM for a little over a year and a half! I know some people disagree with some of his moves, but let's be real here. EVERY GM makes moves that some will agree with and some will disagree with. Does that make him a bad GM? No way! That goes for Krause, Paxson, everyone. Sometimes your GM just has to be the bad guy. You don't make friends in this business. Why do you think everyone in Chicago hated Krause even though he built a team that won 6 championships? Krause was not a bad GM...he just made the wrong decisions at the wrong time, and that's why he "re-signed" (aka fired under the table...just my theory :grinning: ). Considering the mess that Paxson inherited, I think he's done a pretty good job. Some people act like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni were nothing to write home about.



Thanks for the kind words. My thoughts on Krause are as follows:
He was a good GM. He should be commended for assembling a team of players around MJ who brought home 6 championships. That was an excellent job. He tried a couple of different strategies to rebuild the Bulls after the dynasty years, and these strategies were not successful. When he left, it was the right time (or maybe a tad too late, I suppose, though I think he earned the right to have us exercise a little patience).

Enter Pax. Clearly he inherited a mess and clearly he had a wildly different vision for his team. It's natural that a GM is going to want to come in and clean house. Say what you want about his individual moves, but I think he has done a very good job at acquiring talented players. Obviously, this team lacks a current veteran superstar, which is what most elite teams seem to possess (obvious exception: Detroit). I think it's way too hasty to call for his ouster right now. While I certainly think he has made mistakes, overall I do like the guys he has brought in. Guys like Jalen and Donyell were nice players, but they couldn't take this team anywhere. I understand the need to hit the reset button, even if the moves to get rid of these guys seem like a net loss in talent. The problem is, we're really on year 2 of rebuilding, not year 7, from a continuity perspective. If we get rid of Pax, the next guy may come in and clean house again and insert his projects, and on and on and on we go.

Skiles, for me, is a different matter. I'm a little concerned about his willingess to criticize his players in press conferences. I generally do however like a guy who seems to not be concerned about egos and will give you a straight answer. However, I'm increasingly worried about some of his starting lineups and substitutions. I'm starting to believe a little more as well that his offensive schemes aren't going to get the job done. We'll see what develops with him, but I am much more pro-Pax than pro-Skiles, I suppose. I think too often people lump them in together and treat them as though they are the same thing. This probably happens b/c they sort of talk about their collective vision all the time as if they are always on the same page. 

Overall, I do see some positive indications that this team is headed in the right direction. I don't see total incompetence on Pax's part, as some other might. I worry about Skiles. I do think though that the biggest issue that's going to determine the near future for a while is Eddy Curry, whether it be in a trade, an extension, or otherwise.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> Skiles, for me, is a different matter. I'm a little concerned about his willingess to criticize his players in press conferences. I generally do however like a guy who seems to not be concerned about egos and will give you a straight answer. However, I'm increasingly worried about some of his starting lineups and substitutions. I'm starting to believe a little more as well that his offensive schemes aren't going to get the job done. We'll see what develops with him, but I am much more pro-Pax than pro-Skiles, I suppose. I think too often people lump them in together and treat them as though they are the same thing. This probably happens b/c they sort of talk about their collective vision all the time as if they are always on the same page.
> 
> Overall, I do see some positive indications that this team is headed in the right direction. I don't see total incompetence on Pax's part, as some other might. I worry about Skiles. I do think though that the biggest issue that's going to determine the near future for a while is Eddy Curry, whether it be in a trade, an extension, or otherwise.


Yeah, it's really hard to gauge Skiles as a coach from a fan's point of view. We as fans aren't the ones being coached...we just see the result on the floor, and with a team like this, even an amazing coach like Jerry Sloan couldn't coach them to a winning season. I hate to call for yet another coaching change, but if Paxson gets the chance to get a proven coach like Rick Adelman, then he should highly consider a change. As for Eddy Curry, his situation couldn't be harder to judge. An extension would have been very premature so I'm glad no move was made...but come next summer, I'm not sure I'll be able to establish an opinion. Let a guy go who we've invested so much in, or give in to his ridivulous monetary demands. It's almost lose-lose.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's really hard to gauge Skiles as a coach from a fan's point of view. We as fans aren't the ones being coached...we just see the result on the floor, and with a team like this, even an amazing coach like Jerry Sloan couldn't coach them to a winning season. I hate to call for yet another coaching change, but if Paxson gets the chance to get a proven coach like Rick Adelman, then he should highly consider a change. As for Eddy Curry, his situation couldn't be harder to judge. An extension would have been very premature so I'm glad no move was made...but come next summer, I'm not sure I'll be able to establish an opinion. Let a guy go who we've invested so much in, or give in to his ridivulous monetary demands. It's almost lose-lose.



Yep. I'm really unsure about Skiles, but do we really want to bring in Eddy and Tyson's 4th coach right now? I do believe a lack of continuity can be a HUGE problem for a team and we've already got a lot of that with player turnover. Obviously, however, if you've got a bad coach, you don't keep him just for that reason.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> Paxson got two things in the Rose Trade. He cut a year off his max contract commitment (Rose vs Davis) and he got 2 defensive-minded big men (Davis and JYD) to pick up the Chandler-Curry slack.
> 
> ...


Very well-reasoned argument, and I think it completely reflects Paxson's reasons for making the trade. I don't think he expected a Rose trade to turn the team around. Rather, he could kill 2 birds with one stone; dump an extra year of max salary while also helping the team defensively. There was also the hope that Crawford would step into the starting role and flourish there...which he sorta did (17 ppg), but sorta didn't (38% shooting). And if that didn't work out (which it essentially didn't since Crawford is gone) I speculate that Paxson had planned all along to get a scorer thru the draft or free agency. Which he did with Ben Gordon, and unknowingly, Luol Deng. People can talk all they want about how Rose, Crawford, and Marshall would've made the current team a playoff team. But at what price to the salary cap? Do we just hang on to lengthy contracts and be strangled capwise like the Knicks? And even so, who the hell knew at the time that we would end up with 2 lottery picks and a great free agent pickup? All I remember at the time of the trade is that the team was in a state of chaos, and that Rose was at the center of the whole mess. Factoring in the team's abyssmal start, it was at that time when I feel that the guy simply wore out his welcome with the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by *transplant!*
> 
> Paxson got two things in the Rose Trade. He cut a year off his max contract commitment (Rose vs Davis) and he got 2 defensive-minded big men (Davis and JYD) to pick up the Chandler-Curry slack.
> 
> ...


I don't buy the "neither way worked" argument here.

Yes, the Bulls got off to a bad start last season. Rose (with hand issues), Marshall and Crawford were not enough to win early on with a gimpy Chandler, a fat Curry and a sick/raw Hinrich.

The only real step forward this team has on record post-MJ is sadly their 30 win season.... with Rose, Craw, Marshall, Curry and Fizer playing well.

The team was blown up early and Rose and Marshall were dumped for nothing.... and the attitude here is something like "we weren't winning with him."

Our best improvement was with Rose being the main guy.

That being said, Rose alone can't be the main guy on a good team... surrounded by mostly raw, young players. That does not make him worthless.

Teams win with Rose being a solid, key, valuable contributor. Toronto is doing it, Indiana did it and even Denver did it for a year (.500).

I think your third paragraph... about his attitude... is what really turns people off. Yes, Jalen has an inflated ego. He reminds me of Leon from the beer commercials. That does not make him worthless enough to have to package Marshall and make a trade for lesser players just to get rid of him, IMO.

Yah, "we were not winning with him." Every other team he's been on in the NBA for a full season has had a winning season (>= .500) during his tenure. So... I'll contend that he was not really the problem. 

I'm not really even talking about Marshall... who probably is more of a positive contributor to a team than Rose. He's not perfect either, he's not a star.... but he can be a key component to a winning team. It seems the rationalization is that we needed to get rid of the useless, cancerous Rose.... and Marshall was the price we needed to pay.

Pax dumped them both for guys that don't contribute much at all. And we got a year of cap relief. I don't think the Bulls will do much with this.... especially not enough to justify a regression in wins last year... and no end to the losing in sight.

Rose is not worthless. The Bulls are the only NBA team he's been on that didn't have at least one winning season with him. Yah, the Raptors are only 3 games into their season... but they look like they have the makings of a winning season, especially when you look at the quality of the teams they have defeated to go 3-0.

I think Rose, Marshall, this year's Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, a fit Curry and a healthy Chandler, Othella and a developing Gordon could be a .500 team. We need more than a couple above average players..... and having a few veterans on the team that actually contribute would do the team a world of good, IMO. (yah, i'm leaving crawford out)

I'm just really, really tired of the losing. And I don't like to see the team take steps back. (i know... cap space cap space cap space.... we'll see)


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Our best improvement was with Rose being the main guy.



The only reason we won 30 games that year is b/c of all the young guys significant imrpovement at the end of the year. (when they games didn't even matter) Rose clearly took a back seat. This is when Curry put up 18 and 7 or 8 post all star break, Chandler was averaging a double double, Jamal gave us his best stretch with 17 and 7 (and I believe even a nice shooting %) and Jay finished his last 11 games shooting around 60% from the 3 point line and playing well with Jamal in the backcourt. When Rose was the "main" guy for most of the season, that's when we lost most of our games. And I know you said he needs others along him to win so that goes with what you're saying. But that sounds like a role player to me. A role playing chucker nonetheless who has no idea what defense is. Give me a backup bigman role player who's max contract is a year less any day of the week (_especially when the trade enables us to be players in free agency that year instead of paying Rose *17 million dollars* _) over Jalen Rose, role player.

And when you talk about how we took such a big step back last year, I think you are clearly underestimating what the loss of Jay Williams did to us. They were rumors, but in two different scenarios we were getting back Antoine Walker or Carmello Anthony back in trades for him. And even if those fell through, the value of what he could have brought back in a trade is established. I think everybody forgets about that. That was just a huge loss. Then when you got Tyson hardly healthy all season, you're talking about not having two #2 overall picks from the past two seasons to work with. That is something that no GM to can make up for when you're handed a lottery team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yes, JWill was important as well, but not as important as Jalen, Marshall, Craw. JWill started being a consistent positive at the end of the season, other than his one triple-double game. Look at the games. I agree that Rose is not a main guy on a winning team. That’s my main point, really. 

If you take an objective look at that season…..

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=CHI&lg=N&yr=2002

…. Its hard to say that Jalen didn’t have the big impact. 

If you take a look at the 30 games the bulls did win that season…

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=CHI&yr=2002&lg=N

… you’ll see that Jalen was a key guy… and made a positive impact in those games.

What Pax was handed was not worthless. Its easy to blow up what was given to you. The cost of this is 2-3 more losing seasons. You're willing to think that Rose and Crawford were worthless. I disagree. I think you just don't like their style of play. 

I've seen this team with cap space. We'll see if they can do anything with it. I'll be shocked if they can land anyone better than the Jalen Rose type the Bulls traded for years ago. 

In the meantime.... the losses are piling up.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Yes, JWill was important as well, but not as important as Jalen, Marshall, Craw. JWill started being a consistent positive at the end of the season, other than his one triple-double game. Look at the games. I agree that Rose is not a main guy on a winning team. That’s my main point, really.



I don't think he's trying to say that Jay was the main reason we got to 30 wins. I think he's just arguing that the loss of our highly touted #2 pick for absolutely nothing in return was very damaging to the future position of the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he's trying to say that Jay was the main reason we got to 30 wins. I think he's just arguing that the loss of our highly touted #2 pick for absolutely nothing in return was very damaging to the future position of the team.


That's fine... but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about then. 

I think losing good players for absolutely nothing is a bad thing and hurts the Bulls.... I agree.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Did any of our players improve after teh Rose trade?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Did any of our players improve after teh Rose trade?


Hinrich and Crawford.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> What Pax was handed was not worthless. Its easy to blow up what was given to you. The cost of this is 2-3 more losing seasons.


Trading Rose (or "blowing up the team" as you call it) was NOT easy. Teams didn't want his contract for the production he was putting up. Paxson could have shopped Rose for the rest of the season, and it would never have brought back anything more than what we got. I think we were lucky just to be able to trade him at all. 

And it's arguable to think that we're facing 2-3 more losing seasons in the Eastern Conference. It doesn't look like this year is quite the year, but it DOES look to me like the Bulls are very close to being back in the playoff mix. Next year could easily be a 40 win season when you consider what they'll have to work with...

Bulls will have a line-up of talented players with a year of experience playing with each other. Antonio Davis will have a big contract entering its final year, and I think it's very possible Paxson can land a very good player with that (e.g. Nets are still cleaning house, and if they still have Kidd then AD might be the ticket...just an example though). And who knows what luck we'll have with the lottery, but if we get a top 3 pick then that's another talented piece to add to the mix (and if we improve enough, then we're only sending a mid-first rounder to the Suns in 2006 for the Deng trade...lol). However you feel about the Rose trade, you can't deny that Paxson currently has more assets than he started with, to go along with better financial flexibility for the future. The franchise as a whole looks much better than it did even 1 year ago.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich and Crawford.


Did Crawford really improve? He did get some more shots and some more PT.

Did Rose actually play more than a handful of games with Hinrich? Oh yeah, he did, when Hinrich was 15 lbs underweight and recovering from his virus.

What about the bigs? What about Fizer?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Trading Rose (or "blowing up the team" as you call it) was NOT easy. Teams didn't want his contract for the production he was putting up. Paxson could have shopped Rose for the rest of the season, and it would never have brought back anything more than what we got. I think we were lucky just to be able to trade him at all.
> ...


How do you know anything you say about Rose is true? There were rumors we could have traded Rose for Szerbiak or Sprewell. Toronto was obviously willing to trade for Rose, his contract, and his production.

So much for that theory.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Did Crawford really improve? He did get some more shots and some more PT.
> ...


No, Crawford didn't improve, but the thought around the organization was that Crawford would finally get his chance to shine in a starting 2-guard role. If anything, we got to see what we were waiting to see for the previous 3 years. And it helped Pax make the decision to not give in to his monetary demands.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> No, Crawford didn't improve, but the thought around the organization was that Crawford would finally get his chance to shine in a starting 2-guard role. If anything, we got to see what we were waiting to see for the previous 3 years. And it helped Pax make the decision to not give in to his monetary demands.


How would Crawford not had his chance with Rose at SF?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> How would Crawford not had his chance with Rose at SF?


BC was adamant in not playing JC together with Jay and then Kirk.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Trading Rose (or "blowing up the team" as you call it) was NOT easy. Teams didn't want his contract for the production he was putting up. Paxson could have shopped Rose for the rest of the season, and it would never have brought back anything more than what we got. I think we were lucky just to be able to trade him at all.


And you are making an assumption (incorrect IMO) that Rose is worthless and HAD to be traded immediately. This is where I disagree with you and with Pax.

You seem to think that Rose is a liability. I disagree. History is on my side...if you look at his college and pro career... and how he is doing right now. He is not the superstar to single-handedly turn this team around... but when paired with other good players is a good guy to have around, IMO.



> And it's arguable to think that we're facing 2-3 more losing seasons in the Eastern Conference. It doesn't look like this year is quite the year, but it DOES look to me like the Bulls are very close to being back in the playoff mix. Next year could easily be a 40 win season when you consider what they'll have to work with...


Last year was a losing season. This year will be a losing season. I disagree with your assessment. We need some big men. If Curry and Chandler come around, and we sign them, then maybe. If not, I don't see it happening. Deng and Hinrich are not going to be enough, IMO. I hope I'm wrong.




> Bulls will have a line-up of talented players with a year of experience playing with each other. Antonio Davis will have a big contract entering its final year, and I think it's very possible Paxson can land a very good player with that (e.g. Nets are still cleaning house, and if they still have Kidd then AD might be the ticket...just an example though). And who knows what luck we'll have with the lottery, but if we get a top 3 pick then that's another talented piece to add to the mix (and if we improve enough, then we're only sending a mid-first rounder to the Suns in 2006 for the Deng trade...lol). However you feel about the Rose trade, you can't deny that Paxson currently has more assets than he started with, to go along with better financial flexibility for the future. The franchise as a whole looks much better than it did even 1 year ago.


I disagree. We have fewer assets. Rose, Marshall and Crawford are gone and all that remains is some future salary savings and a dream.

In the end... the wins and losses will be the judge. Pax right now has to be one of the losingest GMs ever. Maybe next year he'll turn it around.

Yah, maybe we can trade for Peja or Kidd... we'll see. I have doubts that this is a sound plan to rebuild a team. Like I said in my earlier post… we’re going to have to take on someone else’s problem most likely. Meanwhile... Rose and Marshall will most likely be in the playoffs... along with Trenton... and perhaps Crawford (jury is still out in NY).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> No, Crawford didn't improve, but the thought around the organization was that Crawford would finally get his chance to shine in a starting 2-guard role. If anything, we got to see what we were waiting to see for the previous 3 years. And it helped Pax make the decision to not give in to his monetary demands.


And its ridiculous to think that Crawford would perform any different than he did last year... given he was playing with the D-League all-star team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> BC was adamant in not playing JC together with Jay and then Kirk.


He wanted more than 23 wins, and got it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I think I'm getting to the point where I'm talking in circles here, so just a final comment, at least for now. 

The disagreement here is centered on how good the Bulls WOULD'VE been this year if the Rose trade never happened. Kukoc/DaBullz seem to believe that keeping Rose and Marshall (and Crawford, too, drawing from previous posts) would make the Bulls playoff bound THIS YEAR. Many others, myself included, believe it wouldn't have made any difference; we'd be losers with Rose/Marshall here, and we're losers now, so we might as well cut team salary and get a veteran big man (AD) in the process.

Where I fail to agree is that I don't think you can just throw together a bunch of talents and expect them to win games. You've said before that this team could still have Rose, Marshall, and Crawford to go along with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Chandler, and Curry. Surely an impressive collection of talent, but hardly a complete basketball team. And even with all the new guys aboard, the team's "star player" is still Jalen Rose. People talk about the Bulls problems being this and that...well, looks to me that this team just needs a REAL star player who can lead them to victories. Not a wannabe star who made this team just as bad as it was before he got here. 

I don't disagree with everything you say. I believe in the right role, Jalen Rose can be good for a team. I've always said that Jalen's best role on a team is/was as a 6th man type, not as the 1st or 2nd scoring option, putting up 12/4/4 more or less. The problem is that Rose was given so much credit for being a 20/5/5 guy with the Pacers team that went to the Finals, that he quickly became overrated across the league. Jerry Krause fell on this bandwagon and brought Rose here to be a star; therein lies the mistake. You said yourself that Rose isn't suited for a star role, right? Yet you always defend the man who placed him in that role. Bottom line, Bulls fans watched Rose try to point this team in the right direction, and it simply wasn't happening. Do I place the blame on Rose? No. But as a fan, I felt the time was right for him to go. With high expecations entering last season and experiencing such big letdown, I don't know how you can call the trade premature. 

Have a nice day. Go Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> Jerry Krause fell on this bandwagon and brought Rose here to be a star; therein lies the mistake. You said yourself that Rose isn't suited for a star role, right? Yet you always defend the man who placed him in that role.


Interestingly enough, newspaper reports indicated that Krause was the lone dissenting voice AGAINST the Rose trade.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, newspaper reports indicated that Krause was the lone dissenting voice AGAINST the Rose trade.


Until Oakley was taken out of the deal and Mercer put in.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, newspaper reports indicated that Krause was the lone dissenting voice AGAINST the Rose trade.


That's news to me. At the time of the trade, I only remember hearing a giddy Krause rave about how Jalen's a star, just what the young Bulls need, a true professional to provide leadership and get the team some wins...yada yada. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure I could find some old Tribune articles that quote this from Krause. But it's a moot point from what I was saying anyways.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> I think I'm getting to the point where I'm talking in circles here, so just a final comment, at least for now.
> 
> The disagreement here is centered on how good the Bulls WOULD'VE been this year if the Rose trade never happened. Kukoc/DaBullz seem to believe that keeping Rose and Marshall (and Crawford, too, drawing from previous posts) would make the Bulls playoff bound THIS YEAR. Many others, myself included, believe it wouldn't have made any difference; we'd be losers with Rose/Marshall here, and we're losers now, so we might as well cut team salary and get a veteran big man (AD) in the process.
> ...


See the words I bolded. Unfortunately, it's just untrue. It's a matter of the public record; take a look at the box scores of the games since we got Rose, before we got Rose, and since.

It isn't a matter of just collecting talents, it's using those talents to their fullest abilities.

My position has been consistent. Those guys could run the floor and run most teams out of the gym, the myth about being in playing shape aside. They did it at the end of BC's final season, and they did it in Skiles' first game. Instead, we run a badly conceived offense that transforms scorers into poor shooters and has proven that it causes a regression in our bigs (cornerstones).

So it's an issue of pounding square pegs into round holes, improperly evaluating talent (which we had a LOT of), and to me, a lack of patience with the process.

People claim Krause left some sort of mess. What he left was a team that was deep at every position, and on an upward trend in the W/L columns. What we have now is a team that needs a C, a PF, and a SG just to field an adequate starting lineup.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> That's news to me. At the time of the trade, I only remember hearing a giddy Krause rave about how Jalen's a star, just what the young Bulls need, a true professional to provide leadership and get the team some wins...yada yada. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure I could find some old Tribune articles that quote this from Krause. But it's a moot point from what I was saying anyways.


Well yah, he's not going to come out and say "well... i really didn't want to do this... but this team of youngsters is imploding and my bosses and underlings are saying we need some veteran stability on the team."

EDIT: That being said... Rose seems like the type of player that Krause likes... tall... multi-dimensional... etc 

he OKed it though... and I also thought it was a good move at the time. artest was seriously losing it... he really was going crazy... i was going to all the home games that season and the team was really, really, really bad. they made this team look like the 96 Bulls. and i was very, very happy to have mercer gone.

if this is going to turn into an analysis of the krause rebuilding plan... it has to start IMO with his decision that he could build a bunch of cap space and lure a star FA to play for Chicago. sound familiar?  

i also, in hindsight, regretted the 1st rose trade... artest was my favorite player and he's turned into a star. the last 6 years have made me a lot less supportive of blaming 1 single player for the bulls woes. in hindsight... i don't think it was worth losing miller and artest just to get rid of mercer. i'm less likely to support getting rid of whoever the "scapegoat of the year" is for this team... at the expense of losing talent. and... i think rose is an actual asset.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I for one am really upset that we lost Brad Miller. He's been my favorite player in the league ever since he joined the Bulls. In hindsight, we'd be better off committing to him at center instead of Eddy Curry. Talk about a Pax and Skiles type guy!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tough loss for the Raptors today... but Jalen and Donyell.... oh my!

Thank goodness Pax ran these guys out of town.  

JALEN

FG: 12-21
PTS: 29
AST: 6
RBS: 6
TO: 2
STL: 1
MIN: 45

YELL
FG: 5-9
PTS: 12
RBS: 7
AST: 1
TO: 0
STL: 1
BLK: 1
MIN: 28


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

That's right, bump the days they do well, accidentally overlook the days they do crap.......:worship:


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

First, kukoc4ever is right, my understanding at the time was Kaurse was not for the rose trade and i don't think it was about rose per sa but the issue with Krause was the cap and the amount and length of rose's contract and it was BC and JR who pushed that trade. 

Second, one of the reasons the bulls played so well at the end of the season in 2003 was BC started Jay Williams and JC together for the last dozen games or so and they were both eatting up the league. When Jay went down the team was totally off too start the next season and much of that was due to JC playing PG, which i have always said was not his best position and rose playing SG that is definately not his position.

So too start the season we had perhaps the worst defensive backcourt in the NBA with two players who think shot first playing together, which equals awful chemistry and it effected the whole team, IMO.

IMHO this team is better and will be better as the season goes on then the team that started the 2003 season.

And while i am at it, and everyone is free to disagree, Jay williams was going to have a huge coming out season last year and IMHO was going to establish himself as one of the best PG in the east. Check his stats the last 10 games of the season. Not too mention he and JC were really starting to build some chemistry buth like JC and Marbery this year. His injury is still killing us. In addition, Pax had to draft a PG to replace him, and as a resultshe passed on trading up for wade (it was the 8th pick and marshell for the 5th pick).

So lets not kid ourselfs, we could have had Williams, JC, and Wade in the backcourt starting last year. Think about that.

david


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> That's right, bump the days they do well, accidentally overlook the days they do crap.......:worship:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> That's right, bump the days they do well, accidentally overlook the days they do crap.......:worship:


Feel free to bump it whenever you see fit. It seemed fit to me given our play last night, especially our guard play, and given the game Rose/Marshall had today.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

What I thought was most impressive is how Jalen held his man to only 33/10/10. Stellar defense there. :yes:


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> So it's an issue of pounding square pegs into round holes, improperly evaluating talent (which we had a LOT of), and to me, a lack of patience with the process.


Wasn't Cartwright accused of doing this with the triangle?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> What I thought was most impressive is how Jalen held his man to only 33/10/10. Stellar defense there. :yes:


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1682652#post1682652

If you read this guy's account.... it seems they threw the whole team at Hughes and no one could stop him... and that Rose was solid on D for the most part.



> Who was guarding Larry Hughes? Carter, Peterson, Palacio, Rose, Alston... no matter who we put on him, he ran them ragged.





> Somebody lit a fire under JR today and he delivered. He even contributed on defence.


Did you watch the game... or are you just hating on auto-pilot?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> Wasn't Cartwright accused of doing this with the triangle?


Accuse a guy of taking us from 15 to 21 to 30 wins while you're at it ;-)


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Rose = Cancer

This was true at Michigan, ind, and with the bulls. And he makes like 17 million next year.

I wouldn't let him in the same room with the daughter for one minute.

david


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

um, don't look now but the Raptors are 2-8 last 10 games. We are 1-9. Hmmm. 

One win out west on their west trip. They do have a nice win at home against the Spurs in this 10 game span and one against the Knicks, but then lost to the Knicks the very next game. 

They are not playing 4 rookies in their rotation.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> um, don't look now but the Raptors are 2-8 last 10 games. We are 1-9. Hmmm.
> 
> One win out west on their west trip. They do have a nice win at home against the Spurs in this 10 game span and one against the Knicks, but then lost to the Knicks the very next game.
> ...


And in the last 2 games the Bulls are 1-1 and the Raptors are 0-2.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

well, the Raptors aren't 3 - 0 anymore. What now?!


Let's talk about visions!


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

I have to admit, I'm kind of suprised that in this thread no one has brought up any of the rumors that Toronto would love to get rid of Jalen.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>synthdogg</b>!
> I have to admit, I'm kind of suprised that in this thread no one has brought up any of the rumors that Toronto would love to get rid of Jalen.


The Toronto fans have spoken.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128510&forumid=32

27-2 pro-Jalen at the time of this posting.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The Toronto fans have spoken.
> ...


Well, I'm sure it's not the fans circulating the rumors that if anyone wants Vince Carter, They have to take Rose also...


----------



## MentalPowerHouse (Oct 9, 2003)

Rose is good, his contract sucks.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The Toronto fans have spoken.
> ...







They sure have.  

I admit I don't like Rose, but I can say without any bias that if you go around and read all Raptor message boards on the net, you'll find that there is a lot more Raptor fans who want Rose gone than want him to stay. You can read into a poll as much as you like, but I've read way too many actual messages on different boards to believe this poll has any merit.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No merit?

The opinions of the Raptors fans on BB.net are without merit?

Dang.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

More Toronto fans speak.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=309409


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>synthdogg</b>!
> More Toronto fans speak.
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=309409


i guess by fans you meant 2 everyone else was from the bulls board.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i guess by fans you meant 2 everyone else was from the bulls board.


2 is still plural, right?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

sythdogg , you made it sound like alot of people were having trouble with rose , when in fact its 2...not exactly enough to sway K4ever's poll that had a margin of ....27-2.

In fact i did a similar poll not to long ago about whether or not rose was a cancer , and 97% of raptor fans said he wasn't .

Until proven otherwise those 2 are just some haters , i could could find 2 fans on this board who think othella harrington should be starting jared reiner should play ahead of antonio davis ...it doesn't mean its right or even close to being right.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

How are they hating by saying he takes a lot of dumb shots, doesn't play any defense, and complains to the refs all the time? Do you dispute any of these things? Look at the other thread and tell me there's only two fans that want him gone. I don't think Rose is a team cancer, but he is a guy who wears out his welcome everywhere he goes. 

I glance over other team's boards from time to time here, at realgm, and at ESPN, and these kinds of threads are a common thing. I just think there's some serious homerism going on if you're to believe 93% of Raptor fans want to keep Jalen Rose.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> How are they hating by saying he takes a lot of dumb shots, doesn't play any defense, and complains to the refs all the time? Do you dispute any of these things? Look at the other thread and tell me there's only two fans that want him gone. I don't think Rose is a team cancer, but he is a guy who wears out his welcome everywhere he goes.
> 
> I glance over other team's boards from time to time here, at realgm, and at ESPN, and these kinds of threads are a common thing. I just think there's some serious homerism going on if you're to believe 93% of Raptor fans want to keep Jalen Rose.



http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/poll.php?s=&action=showresults&pollid=4670

i think you may be the homer , my poll is factual


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

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



Did you miss the part where I said "I don't think Rose is a team cancer"? If you did, look above to my last post. Oh and thanks for responding to only the part you felt best would fit your argument. :greatjob: Goodnite.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where I said "I don't think Rose is a team cancer"? If you did, look above to my last post. Oh and thanks for responding to only the part you felt best would fit your argument. :greatjob: Goodnite.


actually i only really read the last paragraph and thats the part i answered .


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Rose is good on the Raptors...he has a superstar in VC to be the man. Here Rose was taking that role and he's not good enough for it.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Rose is a cancer period and the raptors would do and frankly are doing everything to trade him and can not.

He has been run out of every team he has every played for. Is that just chance to more likely is he just a cancer.

david


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

:grinning: 

Sorry man, that really wasn't my intent. I just happenned upon that thread, and thought the timing of it was funny.

My original point wasn't really about fan reaction at all, it was about the reports that Raptor management would like to be rid of Jalen. No big deal.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

I think teams don't want Rose b/c his defense is weak.

I think fans believe he is a cancer b/c of his selfish shots and his abrasive to the eye appearance. 

Jalen Rose looks kinda like an insect. Everyone knows most people are repulsed by insects.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*"I think being a team is the ability to try and find a way to get the most out of each guy. For some reason we have guys who are not performing up to their ability, for whatever reason and I think it is showing."* 

-- Jalen Rose after posting 3 points, 1 assist, 1 rebound, and 3 turnovers in a 101-87 loss.


----------



## Mr_B (Mar 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> I think teams don't want Rose b/c his defense is weak.
> 
> .


its not his defense its his huge contract that scaring teams off I'am in toronto trust me I know


----------

