# Fire Paxson Now



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I was quite premature in removing the fire paxson club from my signature.

I would not want to play for the Bulls, period. 

Hinrich is the only guy who's likely to want to stay, and that's just because they kiss his hiney so thoroughly.

Everyone else is "bring us your best offer, we'll match, and we'll tell the world we'll match (whether we will or not) just to screw you."

Paxson is the kind of guy who'll smile to your face while twisting the knife he's stabbed in your gut.

Nice move hiring your brother, Pax. Shows which side of the bread is buttered.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I was quite premature in removing the fire paxson club from my signature.
> 
> I would not want to play for the Bulls, period.
> 
> ...


:laugh:

While I am not in total agreement with you, I'm leaning in your direction.

I must say though, seeing this thread a mere 2 days after you disbanded the club is hilarious.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I was quite premature in removing the fire paxson club from my signature.
> 
> I would not want to play for the Bulls, period.
> 
> ...


Dude, you got issues.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Which one?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Paxson is the kind of guy who'll smile to your face while twisting the knife he's stabbed in your gut.


This part was kind of melodramatic, but I think I'm ready to agree with you.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> :laugh:
> 
> While I am not in total agreement with you, I'm leaning in your direction.
> 
> I must say though, seeing this thread a mere 2 days after you disbanded the club is hilarious.


I actually thought that signing Ben Wallace is an indication we're actually going to try for a championship. Instead, his contract is just there to make sure we meet the league's salary minimum.

The $$$ is really funny. If you look at last year's payroll, and take out the money paid to guys who didn't put on a uniform (hardly) - Thomas and ERob - they paid everyone but Chandler about $13M *combined*.

That's the way our team wants it. I can't root for the suits. I just can't. The players play their hearts out and get back-stabbed in return.

I really do not see how anyone can be loyal to the franchise. Even if Pax offers Gordon (or Deng or Nocioni or anyone else) a $10M/yr contract, they've got to be thinking they'll be the next salary dump.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I think the Chandler trade is all Reinsdorf. I don't think you should blame Paxson.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_luckily for you dabullz, the bulls don't want you to play for them either._


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My sig is fixed.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I actually thought that signing Ben Wallace is an indication we're actually going to try for a championship. Instead, his contract is just there to make sure we meet the league's salary minimum.
> 
> The $$$ is really funny. If you look at last year's payroll, and take out the money paid to guys who didn't put on a uniform (hardly) - Thomas and ERob - they paid everyone but Chandler about $13M *combined*.
> 
> ...



WAAAAAMBULANCE!!!!!!


Come on son.Its waiting for you


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I think the Bulls want quality, not trash. Any trash is dumped in the Bayou.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I think the Chandler trade is all Reinsdorf. I don't think you should blame Paxson.


Reinsdorf went to california to make sure Chandler signed his deal.

There's NO cap space hit, period, if Chandler stays another year.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Sham said:


> Which one?


seemingly the lesser one


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ever since he took over the franchise has steadily gotten better and better. that simple fact demolishes all the meaningless bluster from anti-Pax posters. 

now he just added a 4-time defensive POY and he got rid of a bad contract. and we're set up now to afford extensions on our core. not sure what more people want.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

You know, the easiest thing in the world to be is a pessimest. It takes absolutely no thought or energy whatsoever.

Yea. OK. Nobody wants to play for the bulls. There's some real mental energy put into this thread. Enough to lightly brown toast I'll wager...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> ever since he took over the franchise has steadily gotten better and better. that simple fact demolishes all the meaningless bluster from anti-Pax posters.
> 
> now he just added a 4-time defensive POY and he got rid of a bad contract. and we're set up now to afford extensions on our core. not sure what more people want.


The franchise hasn't steadily gotten better.

It went from 30 wins to 23
It went from 47 wins to 41

Right now, the trajectory is downward, until it's proven otherwise (47 to 41 is DOWN)


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> I think the Chandler trade is all Reinsdorf. I don't think you should blame Paxson.


ditto.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I really do not see how anyone can be loyal to the franchise. Even if Pax offers Gordon (or Deng or Nocioni or anyone else) a $10M/yr contract, they've got to be thinking they'll be the next salary dump.


so your ideal team is a bunch of loyal players, as opposed to a bunch of good players?

the players want to get paid foremost. if you had told Chandler last year that his signing that contract would mean he'd be traded after a year, he would have taken it anyway. Eddy Curry wanted to make sure he had his big bucks, as did Crawford. thats their right; but see Pax's rights too. he has to field the best team possible and bring a title here, or he's gone.

why are you crying a river for these guys when they've gotten what they've wanted, financial stability for their great grandchildren. the price they pay for playing the game they love, professionally, is that they can be moved at any moment. they've gotten over that, they're pros. but you apparently cant somehow.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> The players play their hearts out and get back-stabbed in return.



Didn't we all just spend a year complaining that this is exactly what Tyson _didn't_ do?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I actually thought that signing Ben Wallace is an indication we're actually going to try for a championship. Instead, his contract is just there to make sure we meet the league's salary minimum.
> 
> The $$$ is really funny. If you look at last year's payroll, and take out the money paid to guys who didn't put on a uniform (hardly) - Thomas and ERob - they paid everyone but Chandler about $13M *combined*.
> 
> ...


since the PJ brown move was about $$$, shouldn't you be targeting
reinsdorf as oppose to pax? after all, if an owner tells a gm
to keep the roster salary at a certain fixed number the gm is 
just a pawn in dumping the salary. isn't that the motto of
the ownership class: "keep the costumers complaining to the manager"?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> so your ideal team is a bunch of loyal players, as opposed to a bunch of good players?


my ideal team is guys worth it getting paid more than rookie wages and a fun team to watch and root for.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Right now, the trajectory is downward, until it's proven otherwise


So is Chandler's trajectory as a player.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Reinsdorf went to california to make sure Chandler signed his deal.
> 
> There's NO cap space hit, period, if Chandler stays another year.


 Presumably Reinsdorf, Paxson, and friends know this as well. Yet they went out and made the trade right now. Couldn't it be assumed that this wasn't so much a business decision but a basketball decision? Afterall, if we internet message board geeks know this detail then surely the people that get paid to know this information is aware.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> ever since he took over the franchise has steadily gotten better and better. that simple fact demolishes all the meaningless bluster from anti-Pax posters.
> 
> now he just added a 4-time defensive POY and he got rid of a bad contract. and we're set up now to afford extensions on our core. not sure what more people want.


I want to see him actually afford extentions to our core.

The crux of the "trade chandler" argument seems to be that he will use that money to pay out extentions. 

If he balks at those extentions next year, what will you say then?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

McBulls said:


> ditto.


I disagree. Paxson is respected enough that he could have convinced Reinsdorf to keep Tyson. But Paxson knows that his job is on the line if the payroll is too big + the team isn't winning. So he dumped Chandler.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

paxman said:


> since the PJ brown move was about $$$, shouldn't you be targeting
> reinsdorf as oppose to pax? after all, if an owner tells a gm
> to keep the roster salary at a certain fixed number the gm is
> just a pawn in dumping the salary. isn't that the motto of
> the ownership class: "keep the costumers complaining to the manager"?


We were $20M below the cap before signing wallace. We just cut ERob's and Tim Thomas' big salaries (about $20M) and added about $15M.

Who wants to root for Jerry Reinsdorf to save $5M/year?

It IS at the expense of the team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

madox said:


> So is Chandler's trajectory as a player.


So is Wallace's and even more so Brown's


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We were $20M below the cap before signing wallace. We just cut ERob's and Tim Thomas' big salaries (about $20M) and added about $15M.
> 
> Who wants to root for Jerry Reinsdorf to save $5M/year?
> 
> It IS at the expense of the team.


What does this have to do with Paxson? How can you blame Paxson AND Reinsdorf for this trade?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ben Wallace seems to want to play for the Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ben Wallace seems to want to play for the Bulls.


Dumars is going to look like a genius partway through the season.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> I want to see him actually afford extentions to our core.
> 
> The crux of the "trade chandler" argument seems to be that he will use that money to pay out extentions.
> 
> If he balks at those extentions next year, what will you say then?



please people. why are you guys pretending Reinsdorf is Donald Sterling? we're gonna have a doable payroll when we extend Hinrich, Gordon, Deng. by the time Wallace will come off the books we'll be able to decide between reupping our 06 and 07 rookies. or by then we'll have already gone in other directions.


Hinrich, Gordon, Deng have improved each year, while Chandler has gone backwards. it's not at all the same thing.



and be clear: the "crux" of the trade Chandler argument is actually this: he was a bad player with a bad contract. and we found a team willing to chase the 'potential' of a 6 yr vet.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I was quite premature in removing the fire paxson club from my signature.
> 
> <b>I would not want to play for the Bulls, period. </b>
> 
> ...


Thank God for that. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Dumars is going to look like a genius partway through the season.


How so?

Are you predicting that:

(a) The Bulls regress with Wallace, or

(b) The Pistons improve upon their 64 win season without Wallace, or

(c) Wallace proves a bust by midseason. 

Take a stand on something determinable. As opposed to your subjective spin.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Just some perspective:

We are crying about Tyson Chandler here.

Taking his career, and throwing out his disasterous rookie year, and his self-admitted "whoopsie" year last year (leaving the other three years of his career, including the Adonis god-like year of 47 win/3rd best record in the East fame) here are the career numbers:

7.8 ppg
8.1 boards
0.8 assists
1.46 blocks

That is eehhh, not horrible scoring.
That is decent rebounding, but not eye-popping
assists? Well, better than Curry and the excuse-makers will poo-poo that anyway.
The blocks -- he did a nice job with that.

And lets not forget the impact his foul-prone defense had on team foul situations, costing us points in helping put us over the limit early and often, giving countless opponents freebees way earlier than they should.

This is a guy who is a role player. No GM should be fired for dealing a role player.

And its not worth another post or another thread.

Though there will be scores and scores to come.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> We were $20M below the cap before signing wallace. We just cut ERob's and Tim Thomas' big salaries (about $20M) and added about $15M.
> 
> Who wants to root for Jerry Reinsdorf to save $5M/year?
> 
> It IS at the expense of the team.


I think that's what I mean.
paxson has no interest in dumping salary - he's not
involved in the profit sharing. this decision is a result
of the bulls owners pushing for a certain fixed roster payroll
for next year when kirk and noc's new contracts will kick in.
they basically told him to get rid of either tyson, ben wallace (ie not use the
cap space), kirk, or noc. and next year I assume it's going to be b/w
ben and deng, and possibly another player will have to be let
go for payroll limitation reasons.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> please people. why are you guys pretending Reinsdorf is Donald Sterling? we're gonna have a doable payroll when we extend Hinrich, Gordon, Deng. by the time Wallace will come off the books we'll be able to decide between reupping our 06 and 07 rookies. or by then we'll have already gone in other directions.
> 
> 
> Hinrich, Gordon, Deng have improved each year, while Chandler has gone backwards. it's not at all the same thing.
> ...


The same old story, only the names have changed. Our "cornerstones of the franchse" were talked about in the very same terms. They're elsewhere, now.

I do not for a second believe that anyone but Hinrich will be offered an extension and will see his contract run out playing for this team.

Chicago has a wonderful history of guys like Santo, Kessinger, Banks, Boerwinkle (even him), Sloan, Payton, Sayers, and a slew of others (some "greats" some not) who ended their careers with the team.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> How so?
> 
> Are you predicting that:
> 
> ...


Because Wallace will play like a 50 million dollar player but not a 60 million dollar player!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

paxman said:


> I think that's what I mean.
> paxson has no interest in dumping salary - he's not
> involved in the profit sharing. this decision is a result
> of the bulls owners pushing for a certain fixed roster payroll
> ...


There's absolutely no reason to salary dump right now, other than to save Reinsdorf some money a year sooner.

The great thing about signing Wallace is it looks like we might really try to be a contender. Contenders don't keep making trades where they get the stinky end of the stick.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Dumars is going to look like a genius partway through the season.


well, he'll look like a fool for a different reason. darko blowing up


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Just some perspective:
> 
> We are crying about Tyson Chandler here.
> 
> ...


I'm not upset about losing chandler. I'm upset about getting the worst end of a trade, yet again. We haven't won a single one, including Krause's last few.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

paxman said:


> well, he'll look like a fool for a different reason. darko blowing up


He's going to look good because he probably didn't want wallace back at all, and what he ended up doing was making Pax overbid/overpay and stupidly trade Chandler for absolutely nothing of value.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Just some perspective:
> 
> 7.8 ppg
> 8.1 boards
> ...


when you factor in the minutes he did that in, that is a kick @ss role player to have.
if you pay a player like that what his production is worth...hoo wee! :biggrin: 

anyway, yes, i liked tyson, but I would not have had any problem with
him being traded. provided that we get equal value back. we didn't. you might blame that
on his big contract. which we gave him. either way it's our mistake. 

having said that i fully expect our team to be better this year. so, beer :cheers:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He's going to look good because he probably didn't want wallace back at all, and what he ended up doing was making Pax overbid/overpay and stupidly trade Chandler for absolutely nothing of value.


And by what criteria are you going to evaluate that? Or are you just going to declare it, as usual. 

Come on. Sack up. I gave you three legitimate options. Pick one. Pick all three. Draft your own if you don't like mine.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

shadow boxing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'm not upset about losing chandler. I'm upset about getting the worst end of a trade, yet again. We haven't won a single one, including Krause's last few.


I'm convinced we won this trade.

At worst, it is a wash. At best, the intangilbles are in our favor.

Bring on the Big Daddy Louisiana Era!


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Drama Queens everywhere!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Who cares about the players? We've got the best lineup in the business--

Robert Judelson
Sanford Takiff
Fred Brzozowski
Steven Crown
Louis Duman
Judd Malkin
Allan Muchin
David Orth
Irving Stenn
Burton Ury
Charles Walsh
Bill Wirtz
Carmont Blitz
Neil Bluhm
The Estate of Alvin Cohn
Lester Crown
The Estate of Eugene Fanning
Marvin Fink
The Estate of Jack Gould
Lamar Hunt
Norma Hunt
Norman Jacobs
The Estate of Charles Lubin
Ann Lurie
Carol P. Norton
Bruce Rauner
William Roberts
Richard Stern
Charles Walsh
Sam Zell

Nobody does it better.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

scott may, if your club stated "jerry reinsdorf please sell the bulls to a cuban-like owner" 
I join it in a second.
Reinsdorf and Co. are pretty terrible, but there are even worse owners.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Who cares about the players? We've got the best lineup in the business--
> 
> Robert Judelson
> Sanford Takiff
> ...


I thought Wirtz was dead.

I used to buy League Pass to watch the bulls. Hardly ever watched the other teams that much. Last season I watched a LOT of other teams' games. I can't stand to think my subscription is solely on Reinsdorf's behalf.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

The sky is falling!

Is this thread some kind of sick joke? Ben Wallace wanted to play for the Bulls. I'll take his opinion over yours.

As far as not winning any trades... Eddy Curry anyone? And I'm still waiting for the Crawford deal to haunt anyone of note.

I hope none of you hounded Paxson for giving Chandler that deal last off-season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> The sky is falling!
> 
> Is this thread some kind of sick joke? Ben Wallace wanted to play for the Bulls. I'll take his opinion over yours.
> 
> As far as not winning any trades... Eddy Curry anyone? And I'm still waiting for the Crawford deal to haunt anyone of note.


Ben Wallace had how many options?

Atlanta? Charlotte?

LOL


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

So it's a qualified opinion... as opposed to a blanket "I don't want to play for the Bulls over anyone, they trade away underperforming, overpaid players" statement?'

You can't have it either way. You're trying to say that a player will accept going to a _alleged_ franchise that stabs people in the back over morally upstanding bottom feeders?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Ben Wallace had how many options?
> 
> Atlanta? Charlotte?
> 
> LOL


Actually, those weren't options for Wallace. As far as we know, the Bulls were the only team to extend any offer to Wallace (even via S&T).


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Who cares about the players? We've got the best lineup in the business--
> 
> Robert Judelson Sanford Takiff Fred Brzozowski Steven Crown Louis Duman Judd Malkin Allan Muchin David Orth Irving Stenn Burton Ury Charles Walsh Bill Wirtz Carmont Blitz Neil Bluhm The Estate of Alvin Cohn Lester Crown The Estate of Eugene Fanning Marvin Fink The Estate of Jack Gould Lamar Hunt Norma Hunt Norman Jacobs The Estate of Charles Lubin Ann Lurie Carol P. Norton Bruce Rauner William Roberts Richard Stern Charles Walsh Sam Zell
> 
> Nobody does it better.


it's too hard to try to split my hate on many targets.
let's take the letter from each name:




 *DAMMIT RSFSLJADIBCBCNTLTMTLNNTACBWRCS!!!* :banghead:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The scary thing is that this trade makes sense if they're going to trade Gordon. Smith is his replacement.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, those weren't options for Wallace. As far as we know, the Bulls were the only team to extend any offer to Wallace (even via S&T).


I don't think he waited very long for them to consider their options.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

paxman said:


> scott may, if your club stated "jerry reinsdorf please sell the bulls to a cuban-like owner"
> I join it in a second.
> Reinsdorf and Co. are pretty terrible, but there are even worse owners.


Really? Cuban let a future two time NBA MVP walk for nothing due to contract concerns. And he bought out the deal of a long-time Maverick favorite and star in Michael Finley - again getting nothing in return - due to fiscal responsibility. 

I think James Dolan is your guy.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Do you guys honestly think Paxson is going to get fired? Every second spent on it is time you won't get back.

Go outside and climb a tree or something.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Really? Cuban let a future two time NBA MVP walk for nothing due to contract concerns. And he bought out the deal of a long-time Maverick favorite and star in Michael Finley - again getting nothing in return - due to fiscal responsibility.
> 
> I think James Dolan is your guy.


Thread over.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Those Knicks sure have looked great with all those horrible Paxson moves.

We needed three things heading into the off-season:

1) Interior strength - we signed the most desirable free agent in Ben Wallace, but did lose Tyson Chandler. Yes, I would have liked to keep Chandler, but not at the expense of Wallace, Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, or Gordon. 

2) Length and Athleticism - we drafted Tyrus Thomas, who we received for as part of the Eddy Curry trade. But you obviously wanted Reinsdorf to spend 30 million dollars for the three c's (Crawford, Curry, and Chandler).

3) A Defensive 2 Guard - we drafted Thabo Sefolosha, who also adds length and athleticism.

So, I like this roster:

PG - Hinrich/Duhon/Pargo
SG - Gordon/Sefolosha/JR Smith
SF - Nocioni/Deng/Kryphaka
PF - Brown/Thomas/Sweetney
C - Wallace/Allen/Schenscher

You obviously would prefer:

PG - Hinrich/Duhon/Pargo
SG - Crawford/Sefolosha/Igudola
SF - Nocioni/Deng/?
PF - Chandler/?/?
C - Curry/Allen/Antonio Davis?

With Crawford, we can replace Grordon with somebody else from that draft. Maybe Iggy, as he was pretty popular heading into that draft. 

Roster A looks pretty balanced, with athleticism and defensive skills at virtually every position. It is also a nice balance of youth and veteran leadership. Roster B has $30 million dollars tied up in Crawford, Curry and Chandler, no veteren leadership, and a pretty bleak future.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

There were s&t discussions with Philly and NY, weren't there?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

This thread and your silly little club are a joke. 

Just close your eyes and imagine your dream team of Jalen, Erob, Jamal, Eddy, and Tyson playing basketball together again. Watch all that potential oozing out of that ballclub.

I swear some people have the basketball acumen of a door-stop. (Sorry if i offended any door-stops out there).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Really? Cuban let a future two time NBA MVP walk for nothing due to contract concerns. And he bought out the deal of a long-time Maverick favorite and star in Michael Finley - again getting nothing in return - due to fiscal responsibility.
> 
> I think James Dolan is your guy.


Cuban consistently made trades to make his team better. He got the good end of the stick on all but a few.

The only bad things I can think of about Cuban is that he gets in trouble by running his mouth, and mmmmaybe how he dealt with Finley. You'd have to ask Finley.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

remlover said:


> This thread and your silly little club are a joke.
> 
> Just close your eyes and imagine your dream team of Jalen, Erob, Jamal, Eddy, and Tyson playing basketball together again. Watch all that potential oozing out of that ballclub.
> 
> I swear some people have the basketball acumen of a door-stop. (Sorry if i offended any door-stops out there).


I imagine those guys getting traded for BETTER players, not worse ones.

You can twist that however you want.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

paxman said:


> scott may, if your club stated "jerry reinsdorf please sell the bulls to a cuban-like owner"
> I join it in a second.
> Reinsdorf and Co. are pretty terrible, but there are even worse owners.


Cablevision isn't in any kind of position to spend $300+ million on a basketball team, so I'm proceeding under the assumption that literally anyone else would be an upgrade.

I'd just like all of the focus to be on building a winning team, not whether the Estate of Alvin Cohn gets its 1-2 million in profit sharing for F07.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

I'll take Pax as my GM over any of you "know it alls"

I'll tell you that much.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, those weren't options for Wallace. As far as we know, the Bulls were the only team to extend any offer to Wallace (even via S&T).


Not that it matters - since all that matters is we got him - but there were reports that Philly and New York were attempting sign and trade deals with Detroit on Sunday.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Really? Cuban let a future two time NBA MVP walk for nothing due to contract concerns. And he bought out the deal of a long-time Maverick favorite and star in Michael Finley - again getting nothing in return - due to fiscal responsibility.
> 
> I think James Dolan is your guy.



nope. cuban hires good personnel and spends. first of all, you can't
call him a 2 time mvp in regards to before he was that.
secondly you can't give one example and then claim that 
cuban doesn't spend. you know very well he spends. and wins.
soon after cuban took over the franchise they've been in
the elite of the nba and never dropped. dirk is a big part of
that. but if sub dirk with kg and I think they stay elite, and maybe win
a championship. i say kg b/c there's an example of a bad owner, glen taylor.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Thread over.


you found that post that convincing?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

paxman said:


> you found that post that convincing?


Thread isn't over, now, is it?


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Just another reminder that Paxson isn't going to get fired. At this point it's probably a good idea to move onto more productive ventures, such as preparing a coffee or reading a magazine.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Not that it matters - since all that matters is we got him - but there were reports that Philly and New York were attempting sign and trade deals with Detroit on Sunday.


Facts will never impact the Scott May negativity club. The 76ers and Knicks, amongst others, were going after Wallace. By the way, Wallace also had the option of being the highest paid player on the Detroit Pistons. So I guess he had other options, but that is a meaningless fact.

By the way, when Chandler was a free agent last year, he did not receive a single offer from any other team in the NBA. But Chandler is great.

Mark Cuban, as an owner, has ZERO championships in any sport. Reinsdorf has seven rings in two sports. But he is a better owner because .... well, because I said so.

Cuban let Steve Nash walk away for NOTHING. I was purely budget driven. Brilliant move there. Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford for $18MM - brilliant.

The absolute negativity of some posters is mind-boggling.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Just another reminder that Paxson isn't going to get fired. At this point it's probably a good idea to move onto more productive ventures, such as preparing a coffee or reading a magazine.


I thought you said the thread was over?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

remlover said:


> This thread and your silly little club are a joke.


There is no club. If you recall, before it was recently disbanded, the Fire Paxson club was comprised by about 80% posters who don't come here anymore and based their inclusion in the club dating back to the Crawford trade and 23 win season. 

No doubt that is why DaBullz is afraid to actually start over with a new one in his sig. I doubt in the current environment there is a significant number of posters who, though we disapprove of some of Paxson's individual moves from time to time (like this one, obviously), truly believe he should be fired for what he has done.

Since DaBullz has refused to take me up on my other two simple challenges to take a stand on something quantifiable, I slap him thusly with this glove :wink: :

*Start over from scratch with a new club. Don't just talk about it. Seriously. It looks like you already have a couple of takers* 

I always liked the club as a reference tool anyway. I miss it. Hook me up, man.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There is no club. If you recall, before it was recently disbanded, the Fire Paxson club was comprised by about 80% posters who don't come here anymore and based their inclusion in the club dating back to the Crawford trade and 23 win season.
> 
> No doubt that is why DaBullz is afraid to actually start over with a new one in his sig. I doubt in the current environment there is a significant number of posters who, though we disapprove of some of Paxson's individual moves from time to time (like this one, obviously), truly believe he should be fired for what he has done.
> 
> ...



:clap:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

paxman said:


> nope. cuban hires good personnel and spends. first of all, you can't
> call him a 2 time mvp in regards to before he was that.
> secondly that was a different steve nash.
> thridly, you can't give one example and then claim that
> ...


Cuban has stopped spending to avoid paying more of the Luxury tax. That's why he didn't resign Steve Nash, after giving Finley and Dirk big paydays. And why he cut Finley to save money on the cap this year. His free spending days are history and he has said so. 

Dumars didn't want to give Wallace money that would take the team over the Luxury tax. Should he be fired? Detroit is a big market, not as big as Chicago, but it isn't as small as Milwaukee. San Antonio stays under the cap on purpose, too.

But I don't think this trade was done as a salary dump. This was a Tyson dump - maybe as much for Tyson as the future of the team. Yes, this will give us some more cap room, and allow other things to happen. And maybe it'll give us room to sign one of those elite free agents coming up in 2007.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Rasho Nesterovic, championship stalwart, recently dumped by San Antonio. Fire appropriate GM please.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Do you guys honestly think Paxson is going to get fired? Every second spent on it is time you won't get back.
> 
> Go outside and climb a tree or something.


BOOM!


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

LIBlue said:


> Facts will never impact the Scott May negativity club. The 76ers and Knicks, amongst others, were going after Wallace. By the way, Wallace also had the option of being the highest paid player on the Detroit Pistons. So I guess he had other options, but that is a meaningless fact.
> 
> Mark Cuban, as an owner, has ZERO championships in any sport. Reinsdorf has seven rings in two sports. But he is a better owner because .... well, because I said so.
> 
> ...


you seem smart, but I suspect you're trying too hard. cuban letting nash go is the only move
to save money you can find. and you're selling your intelligence short
b/c you know that he spends a lot. furthermore, if what you're talking
about is bottom line in the W/L collumn, then you know that they've won
more without nash. (and i'm not saying they are better w/o him)

now, the reason reinsdorf is a good owner is solely b/c he hires great GMs.
the reason you further seem to think he's a great owner is b/c of how lucky
he was. jordan gets more credit for those championships than reinsdorf.
but reinsdorf is a bad owner b/c of the reverse logic. first let's have a winner,
then i'll spend. that you could win on a small payroll is possible BUT LESS
LIKELY. the way a good GM thinks, is "first i'll spend, then maybe we'll win, but
it will give us a better shot." now go ahead, give me the exception to the rule, mr.
james dolan. (just like you gave the exception to the rule of cuban's spending habits, mr. 
steve nash)


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Cuban consistently made trades to make his team better. He got the good end of the stick on all but a few.
> 
> The only bad things I can think of about Cuban is that he gets in trouble by running his mouth, and mmmmaybe how he dealt with Finley. You'd have to ask Finley.


Yup, despite cutting Finley and replacing Nash with Dampier, he's still paying 75 million for a roster in a small market. And you can bet that he's going to extend Josh Howard (he's already extended Jason Terry) despite having many capable players who can play the same position. Weird how Dallas can afford it, but the Bulls can't.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

narek said:


> Cuban has stopped spending to avoid paying more of the Luxury tax. That's why he didn't resign Steve Nash, after giving Finley and Dirk big paydays. And why he cut Finley to save money on the cap this year. His free spending days are history and he has said so.
> 
> Dumars didn't want to give Wallace money that would take the team over the Luxury tax. Should he be fired? Detroit is a big market, not as big as Chicago, but it isn't as small as Milwaukee. San Antonio stays under the cap on purpose, too.
> 
> But I don't think this trade was done as a salary dump. This was a Tyson dump - maybe as much for Tyson as the future of the team. Yes, this will give us some more cap room, and allow other things to happen. And maybe it'll give us room to sign one of those elite free agents coming up in 2007.


He's still going to pay a pretty large sum of luxury tax though. He cut Finley, but he resigned Terry, and is going to resign Howard. No matter what, with Dirk, Dampier, Terry, Howard, on the payroll, the Mavs are going to pay the luxury tax. But Cuban doesn't mind because he wants to win, not make a profit.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

LIBlue said:


> Those Knicks sure have looked great with all those horrible Paxson moves.
> 
> We needed three things heading into the off-season:
> 
> ...



Ka Boom

I was a huge Tyson supporter for years, defending him against all comers because of his burning desire and potential.

The issue for me was the fact he never got better, and the was no reason to be confident it was going to happen for him in Chicago. If you cannot stay on the floor for significant minutes, you cannot get better. If you have no confidance in your shot, you cannnot score. If you cant hold your ground, your man defense is screwed. If your natural body frame will not allow you to retain muscle, you cannot gain bulk.

Would Tyson be earning his millions by the final years of his deal? Debateable at best, and if you were wrong that would be 2 consecutive contracts wasted by an organization. I wanted to see Tyson blossom into an all-star too, but he has developed into a very one dimensional ballpayer. Sadly his next contract might have the most promise for a payoff.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

narek said:


> But I don't think this trade was done as a salary dump. This was a Tyson dump - maybe as much for Tyson as the future of the team. Yes, this will give us some more cap room, and allow other things to happen. And maybe it'll give us room to sign one of those elite free agents coming up in 2007.


a stretch. and even if I agreed that this was a tyson dump, it hurts our team. we 
can use him for 20 minutes a game. and even if i agreed that it was to help tyson - 
we should be thinking about helping our team, not our players' careers.

as for those 2007 free agents - even with this move we have zero room under the cap.
what with the salaries of the 2 draft picks this year, one next year, re-upping noc and 
kirk, every player's salary the raises a bit next year. zero cap room next year.

anyway, this is silly. i don't think there should be too much debate about cuban vs. reinsdorf
(b/c it's cuban all the way! :biggrin: ) 

my point is that this eneven trade is a push by the owners. it can be remedied by 
one factor: JR Smith working on his dribbling. it could happen, in which case i'd be
fine with the trade, though think it was made at too big a risk.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Ben Wallace had how many options?
> 
> Atlanta? Charlotte?
> 
> LOL



Umm, Detroit?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> nope. cuban hires good personnel and spends.


Reinsdorf hired Paxson and Skiles.



> first of all, you can't
> call him a 2 time mvp in regards to before he was that.


Right. He was just a multiple time allstar and all nba team award recipient. Anyway, I said "future" MVP. 



> secondly you can't give one example and then claim that
> cuban doesn't spend.


I gave *two examples * of the most pure form of salary dumping there is. Excusing players in exchange for nothing. 

He could have spent more, but didn't. And his team still did well.

You guys aren't even waiting to see if, and for how much, Reinsdorf commits to Hinrich/Deng/Gordon/Noc/Thomas, etc. before calling him a cheapskate. Even though his less obvious "salary dump" involves a far less reliable talent (with a smaller contract) than those unceremoniously dumped by your boy Cuban. 



> you know very well he spends. and wins.


I know. I'm not knocking Cuban. He's a great owner. There is spending and there is spending wisely. He does both. I think Reinsdorf has a similar history. 

Reinsdorf always spends when he wins too. Funny thing is, Cuban actually reduced payroll to accomplish his best season to date - reduced by $17 million from last year to this one. 



> soon after cuban took over the franchise they've been in
> the elite of the nba and never dropped. dirk is a big part of
> that. but if sub dirk with kg and I think they stay elite, and maybe win
> a championship. i say kg b/c *there's an example of a bad owner, glen taylor.*


Bad, but willing to spend, damnit!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Just another reminder that Paxson isn't going to get fired. At this point it's probably a good idea to move onto more productive ventures, such as preparing a coffee or reading a magazine.


So fans aren't allowed to boo, or wear paper bags over their heads, or otherwise show their displeasure with management?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Reinsdorf hired Paxson and Skiles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you know what, after reading this i think we actually agree way more
than not. i've stated, as did you, that I think reinsdorf has good merits, 
namely his hiring of great GMs (krause, paxson, kenny williams)
and you agree that cuban is a great owner.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The franchise hasn't steadily gotten better.
> 
> It went from 30 wins to 23
> It went from 47 wins to 41
> ...


Exaclty! So Pax just goes out and recruits the best available FA. Then dumps a bad contract and gains flexibility for deadline trading with an expiring contract. He turned EC/TC/AD into Wallace, Brown, Sweetney, Thomas. The Curry trade was unfortunate, but was the safe play considering his work ethic and the health issue.

If you think this is a 41 win team Pax has assembled you're nuts. Calm down hater of Pax. He keeps proving you wrong. He's gotten us back in the playoffs. He's made us an attractive destination for big time FA's. Now he's made us a contender for the finals, while hurting one of our division rivals.

Besides, it is not possible to keep all of the players with upside fiscally. Chandler has had time. I'll bet if he'd been at the Berto all summer this trade doesn't go down.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> So fans aren't allowed to boo, or wear paper bags over their heads, or otherwise show their displeasure with management?


Not at all. Voice all your displeasure.

Where was the "Sell the Mavericks, Mark Cuban!" when he let Steve Nash go for nothing. Because he had credit for all the good he had done, much like Paxson deserves for turning this previously laughing stock of a franchise around, whether you choose to admit he has done so or not. What we have seen is that John Paxson cannot win with you guys, despite the incredible job that he has done, based on all outside opinions. Mine being one. You guys really don't know how lucky you are.

None of the other 'sky is falling' opinion re: Crawford and Curry has eventuated, so why beat a dead horse?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

LIBlue said:


> The absolute negativity of some posters is mind-boggling.



i think it's _disgraceful_.

pax manages to sign the biggest "FA get" of the summer, a star player, the reigning DPOY, and all we have is *****ing and moaning about trading a guy everyone was just _dumping on_ last season. _"get a new pair of hands! get your head out of your ***! etc. etc."_

come on.

if tyson becomes an all-star then i guess a bunch of us will have to eat crow. whatever. i think it was a basketball move first, and a salary dump second. one thing leads to another....





ultimately he didn't fit the PaxVision and i think some people are having a hard time swallowing that PaxVision has so far succeeded _where their own ideas_ would've failed so miserably. 

curry, crawford and chandler weren't going to lead us to the promised land, folks. 

show all the displeasure you want. knock yourself silly!

_YOU CRAZY MAN. _


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Reinsdorf hired Paxson and Skiles.
> 
> I gave *two examples * of the most pure form of salary dumping there is. Excusing players in exchange for nothing.
> 
> ...


The difference is that Cuban has a team in a smaller market, and the only reason he cut Finley/didn't resign Nash is because the payroll had gotten so large that the team was unprofitable. Even with Chandler on payroll, the Bulls would still be extremely profitable. The situations aren't comparable at all.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

lorgg said:


> Calm down *hater of Pax*.


DaBullz' Native American name?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

rwj333 said:


> The difference is that Cuban has a team in a smaller market, and the only reason he cut Finley/didn't resign Nash is because the payroll had gotten so large that the team was unprofitable. Even with Chandler on payroll, the Bulls would still be extremely profitable. The situations aren't comparable at all.


perhaps besides your point, but i wouldn't call the 5th biggest city in the u.s. a small market.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> DaBullz' Native American name?


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> i think it's _disgraceful_.
> 
> pax manages to sign the biggest "FA get" of the summer, a star player, the reigning DPOY, and all we have is *****ing and moaning about trading a guy everyone was just _dumping on_ last season. _"get a new pair of hands! get your head out of your ***! etc. etc."_
> 
> ...


back when we thought that this trade was a 3 way trade that would give
us a lot of cap room to get a 2nd FA, you said that if it turns out to be basically a tyson
for pj swap you wouldn't like it. what changed your mind?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> The difference is that Cuban has a team in a smaller market, and the only reason he cut Finley/didn't resign Nash is because the payroll had gotten so large that the team was unprofitable. Even with Chandler on payroll, the Bulls would still be extremely profitable. *The situations aren't comparable at all.*


There are other differences as well. Dallas' current team, with the exception of Howard and Harris, is veteran laden. 

The Bulls' core is Wallace - $15 million per - Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Sefalosha, Thomas, and Duhon - all of which are on rookie or "rookie equivalent" contracts. That is 7 of the 9 players that will comprise the core rotation (Wallace and Brown being the other two). And I'm not even counting JR Smith or Sweetney. 

Think how outrageous our payroll will be if Reinsdorf re-ups them all? And we know that, other than Thabo and Tyrus, the rest of those 7 guys are successes. 

Now imagine re-upping all those guys, plus Wallace, plus Chandler. Some of you are playing fantasy ball and think money is no object. But that is unreasonable. 

You now must wait and see what Reinsdorf will do, and what he will spend, as this young group of already established winners (individually and collectively) come into their own and succeed. That is rational and objective observation and analysis. 

What we have here is sensitive, subjective, preemptive assumptions. In my ever so humble opinion. :biggrin:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There are other differences as well. Dallas' current team, with the exception of Howard and Harris, is veteran laden.
> 
> The Bulls' core is Wallace - $15 million per - Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Sefalosha, Thomas, and Duhon - all of which are on rookie or "rookie equivalent" contracts. That is 7 of the 9 players that will comprise the core rotation (Wallace and Brown being the other two). And I'm not even counting JR Smith or Sweetney.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I understand your point. I realize that we have players to resign. The Bulls *might* have a huge payroll *if* they resign everybody. The Mavericks already had a huge payroll. In my opinion, having a huge payroll is a far worse situation that potentially having a huge payroll. I can understand dumping salary if you're already paying a large sum of money and can't afford much more, like the Mavs. Dumping Finley saved the Mavs more than 90 million dollars.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

paxman said:


> you seem smart, but I suspect you're trying too hard. cuban letting nash go is the only move
> to save money you can find. and you're selling your intelligence short
> b/c you know that he spends a lot. furthermore, if what you're talking
> about is bottom line in the W/L collumn, then you know that they've won
> ...



We won more without Jamal too 

We didn't win more with Eddy ( 5 games less ) but we were still a 1st round team anyway so I put us reasonably the same 

The Heat will tell you they're toughest comp was our unspectacular scrappy Bulls 

I think we win a more games next season without Tyson and Eddy with Ben , PJ , Tyrus and Sweets ( effectively ) as their replacements


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

paxman said:


> back when we thought that this trade was a 3 way trade that would give
> us a lot of cap room to get a 2nd FA, you said that if it turns out to be basically a tyson
> for pj swap you wouldn't like it. what changed your mind?



at first i hated it as a straight up swap, yes. then when it was rumored to be part of "how we get ben wallace", that changed the landscape of the deal for me and i could accept that. and yes, i did say that if we didn't get wallace and pax went ahead with this anyway, i wouldn't like it. i don't think anyone would've. 

but guess what?


*we got ben wallace.* 


i changed my stance. **** happens. life goes on.



i am so over chandler already it isn't even funny.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Not that it matters - since all that matters is we got him - but there were reports that Philly and New York were attempting sign and trade deals with Detroit on Sunday.


New York wanted him?

Uh-oh.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point. I realize that we have players to resign. The Bulls *might* have a huge payroll *if* they resign everybody.


Right. So lets see what happens. Lets see if Reinsdorf will pay for a winner.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

While I still see significant upside to Chandler, and don't care much at all for this deal, I'm not yet allowing myself to fall into the fire Paxson bucket. Clearly, Tyson had some major holes in his game (like shooting and understanding how to set a screen without moving) and may never become beefier than a rail, but he already is Ben Wallace-like at a very early age in terms of rebounding and somewhat in terms of being a defensive game changer at critical moments of some games. Had he not disappointed so badly down the stretch and in the playoffs after his mid-season revival this past season, then I probably would be in the fire Paxson bucket right now. Still, I'm not sure that Big Ben replacing Tyson is in our best interests longer-term. I guess we'll have to wait and see what kind of an influence our veteran bigs have on our younger guys and if Tyson ever reaches his potential as a Hornet.

While my gut reaction is to dislike the deal, Pax has done too many good things this off-season not to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Big Ben over Tyson is clearly an upgrade near-term. Tyrus and Big Ben clearly bring a very competitive and intimidating presence to our team despite their lack of height. PJ and Ben should provide some serious veteran leadership. Thabo sounds like he could turn out very good, and fits our needs perfectly. Khyrapa sounds like a perfect role player off the bench. If Pax can translate Brown's ending contract w/ other parts into a good player by the trade deadline and/or use the remaining cap space to sign a significant piece, then we may look back at this move as being something much brighter than it seems today. With the pick swap coming next year, our future remains bright even though we've gotten a lot older and lost some still undeveloped potential with Tyson. If we extend Noc and/or Hinrich before the summer is out, and perhaps add another quality piece via free-agency, then I'll become much more content with the departure of TC and the direction of the organization.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I was quite premature in removing the fire paxson club from my signature.
> 
> I would not want to play for the Bulls, period.
> 
> ...


 I can understand you being upset about TC being traded for Brown and Smith. However, have you considered this might lead to another, bigger move in the future?

Really, I think everyone should try to chill out and reserve judgement about Paxson until all the moves this off season have been made. Of course that is easier for me to say since I am not a Bulls fan.

BTW, I liked that club.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> ultimately he didn't fit the PaxVision and i think some people are having a hard time swallowing that PaxVision has so far succeeded _where their own ideas_ would've failed so miserably.


I agree with your post in it's entirety and especially this part. Paxson took on Krause's mess, which resulted in 6 years of being deep in the lottery. Now? Krause is completely gone from the modern days Bulls. No Crawford, no Curry, no Rose, and now no Chandler. The Crawford-Curry-Chandler vision that people had is officially dead with no remains from the Krause era. 

Paxson has completely revamped this roster top to bottom. The whole rotation is all guys that he has brought in during his tenure. The result? We'll probably win 50 or more games next season. 

You're 100% on point mizenkay. People are still in love with the Crawford-Curry-Chandler vision that Krause had, and people hate Paxson for so quickly breaking that up, and more importantly, being very successful in the process. 

Winning is my bottom line as a Bulls fan. Paxson has done the best job possible. Two years straight in the playoffs, taking the eventual champs to 6 games, which is as good as any team did. These are things we would have killed for during the Krause era. It was all kool-aid and offseason hopes back then. No results. Just lottery appearances. Now we're actually moving up and I'm loving it. 

Paxson is one of the very best general managers in the game right now. I would say top 5 atleast.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> New York wanted him?
> 
> Uh-oh.


The variant aspect of this trade that guarantees the "Tyson Chandler Update Thread" will never reach the epic status of its predecessors. :banana:


----------



## J-City (Feb 20, 2003)

I haven't seen so much crying since my days in Kinder-Care. Get a grip.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Right. So lets see what happens. Lets see if Reinsdorf will pay for a winner.


I think it was ScottMay that posted yesterday: 

"The checks in the mail" = "I'll pay for a winner" = "I won't come in your mouth" . 

Anyway, in my opinion, there was no reason for the trade to happen now. I'm not a GM, so this is speculation, but I simply can't envision Tyson's value becoming any lower. Oh well.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> at first i hated it as a straight up swap, yes. then when it was rumored to be part of "how we get ben wallace", that changed the landscape of the deal for me and i could accept that. and yes, i did say that if we didn't get wallace and pax went ahead with this anyway, i wouldn't like it. i don't think anyone would've.
> 
> but guess what?
> 
> ...


fair enough.
hey, i've been ecctatic about wallace before and that has certainly not 
been diminished. go bulls :wordyo:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> I think it was ScottMay that posted yesterday:
> 
> "The checks in the mail" = "I'll pay for a winner" = "I won't come in your mouth" .
> 
> Anyway, in my opinion, there was no reason for the trade to happen now. I'm not a GM, so this is speculation, but I simply can't envision Tyson's value becoming any lower. Oh well.


Easy way out. Declare it to be so with no accountability later. Edited. Personal attack.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> The variant aspect of this trade that guarantees the "Tyson Chandler Update Thread" will never reach the epic status of its predecessors. :banana:


 I don't know about that. If the Hornets do well next year you could see the TC update thread grow to a mammoth size.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

It's nice to use Finley as an example of how Cuban is just like Reinsdorf in his zeal for fiscal sanity, but there are a couple of nagging details that make it a false comparison in terms of the basketball side of the shop.

Finley was on the wrong side of 31 when Cuban used the one-time amnesty on him. His clear decline in production for four consecutive years made it apparent that things would get worse before they got better, and Dallas had a bevy of younger, better options already in hand -- Howard, Daniels, Stackhouse.

As for Nash, Cuban's blog seemed to suggest it was Nash's age that scared off Dallas's personnel guys, not Nash's salary demands.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point. I realize that we have players to resign. The Bulls *might* have a huge payroll *if* they resign everybody. The Mavericks already had a huge payroll. In my opinion, having a huge payroll is a far worse situation that potentially having a huge payroll. I can understand dumping salary if you're already paying a large sum of money and can't afford much more, like the Mavs. Dumping Finley saved the Mavs more than 90 million dollars.


Six to one and half a dozen of the other 

I believe the Bulls already have the core cost soughted for Ben , Kirk and Nocioni which will total around $32M 

Throw in Tyrus , Sef and next year's pick and we're another $8M 

That's $40M for 6 players for the next 4 years

Throw in Luol and Ben ( if they can be retained for targeted cost ) and we're at $56M 

Throw in Mr Big Shot and call it $60M for 9 players

Add 3 - 4 players at vet minimum / late first round additions over the same period and we're hitting $65M for our roster in 3 years

Likely skirting the L Tax level but with capacity to nudge just inside of it 

Will we genuinely be contending and will the Chairman exceed it and pay it if its a matter of Ben Gordon demanding an extra $2M ave on his next contract beyond say an $8M per that they might have slated for him?

The point is is that reagrdless of whether we actually have the bucks out the door right now to think they we haven't planned for our playing personnel / payroll structure 2 - 3 years from now when we will have a Mavs style payrpoll is just wrong 

Decisions made today re player / payroll structuring are made over what is reasonably foreseeable and what is planned for over the mid to longer term

The Dallas dump in my mind - a direct response to the carrot and stick of the new age of financial rationalism that the last CBA ushered in is no different to our recent circumstances 

Even Paul Allen pulled his head in and cleaned house before he sailed off into the sunset 

Why ?

His business just wasn't worth as much losing the type of unnecessary money in L Tax penalties that were disbursed to other teams around the league 

The last CBA and the L Tax imposition worked an absolute treat and brought down the free wheeeling laissre faire big swinging dick nerdy wannabe jock riding owners ..yes that's you Paul Allen and Mark Cuban 

Stuff knows what the Knicks think they're doing . They're an anomaly to the rest off the league that has fallen into line .. I mean there is Cablevision ....I can only assume that the reduction of their profits from subscription revenues would be far greater than their L Tax donations if they didn't spend the money on 2nd rate losers that the viewing public recognise as a name and can't disassociate "the name" with lack of basketball talent 

Uh ..if we're paying Coney Island Steph $15M a year he must be good ..right ?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Anima said:


> I don't know about that. If the Hornets do well next year you could see the TC update thread grow to a mammoth size.


I think the Hornets are looking pretty good as well.

Paul
West
Peja
Chandler/Armstrong/Simmons

That's a core.

I mean, honestly, that team beats the Bulls in a 7 game series, right?

For whatever reason, perhaps cause noone really cares about the Hornets, I don't see the Chandler thread getting very heated either.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> As for Nash, Cuban's blog seemed to suggest it was Nash's age that scared off Dallas's personnel guys, not Nash's salary demands.


In all fairness, Paxson will likely say that doubts about the compatibility of Ben and Tyson necessitated the trade. I have no more or less reason to believe Paxson than I do Cuban.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I was all for the signing of Ben Wallace -- assuming that we signed him to a four year deal as opposed to five -- which we did. Paxson gets major props for me. This acquisition gets an A- from me. Ben is past his prime, I think, and I hope he doesn't start declining rapidly. Still, a very positive move for Pax.

Then Paxson traded Chandler for a nearly retired big in what is essentially a salary dump move. I do not expect JR Smith to get minutes on this team, although I think he has talent. I did not want to trade Chandler without getting a young big in return. For this deal, Paxson gets a C- from me. 

I would like the look of the roster better if we had taken LaMarcus Aldridge. Of course that was before free agency began. I'm not super high on Tyrus Thomas, although at this point I hope he will surprise me. Thabo sounds like an excellent pick, but is he really going to be better than Ronnie Brewer? Pax gets a B- here from me.

So in total, Pax has got a B- from me this offseason. I still want a big who can score in the post. No luck there. I think we are better, but in my opinion, we could be in even better shape this offseason with the resources we had.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think the Hornets are looking pretty good as well.
> 
> Paul
> West
> ...


I'm not sure about that, K4E. We beat a lot of teams that look better than us on paper. And really, can you assume that Armstrong and Simmons are "core-worthy?" Moreso than Thomas and Thabo?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It's nice to use Finley as an example of how Cuban is just like Reinsdorf in his zeal for fiscal sanity, but there are a couple of nagging details that make it a false comparison in terms of the basketball side of the shop.
> 
> *Finley was on the wrong side of 31 when Cuban used the one-time amnesty on him*. His clear decline in production for four consecutive years made it apparent that things would get worse before they got better, and Dallas had a bevy of younger, better options already in hand -- Howard, Daniels, Stackhouse.
> 
> As for Nash, Cuban's blog seemed to suggest *it was Nash's age that scared off Dallas's personnel guys*, not Nash's salary demands.


Gosh, then I guess Reinsdorf's willingness to spend $15 million per on a 32 year old player proves he's just that much more willing to spend than Cuban. 

You know good and well if Reinsdorf did either of those things to current and beloved Bulls players you'd be calling him a cheap ******* until the cows came home. And thats fine. It would probably be warranted. 

I'm just saying that this roster is uniquely situated with young players to be as successful as it is. As a result, the Bulls base payroll can't be compared to veteran laden teams like Dallas. I only cited Cuban because someone else brought him up. I think he's a great owner. I love that guy. 

We'll know if Jerry will put his money where his mouth is within a couple of years as Hinrich, Noc, Deng, Gordon and Duhon come up for extensions.

EDIT: What? I can't ge the word ******* through the filter?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> So in total, Pax has got a B- from me this offseason. I still want a big who can score in the post. No luck there. I think we are better, but in my opinion, we could be in even better shape this offseason with the resources we had.


Nice Post. I agree with this.

The problem is, there is no good reason for this not to be an A.

PJ... shmee-J Malik Allen would have filled that role just fine.

I hate the shell game.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I was all for the signing of Ben Wallace -- assuming that we signed him to a four year deal as opposed to five -- which we did. Paxson gets major props for me. This acquisition gets an A- from me. Ben is past his prime, I think, and I hope he doesn't start declining rapidly. Still, a very positive move for Pax.
> 
> Then Paxson traded Chandler for a nearly retired big in what is essentially a salary dump move. I do not expect JR Smith to get minutes on this team, although I think he has talent. I did not want to trade Chandler without getting a young big in return. For this deal, Paxson gets a C- from me.
> 
> ...


my favorite post of the summer so far. 
the moves so far could have been better, but most definitely more good than bad. 
I'd give pax an incomplete, of course, b/c I haven't had the info 
he had on thabo/brewer and tyrus/aldridge, and judgement on 
that would have to wait.
but aside from the unknowns, a solid B from me :greatjob:

also, dmd, i think you might bring it up to a B as well, if 
you considered the pro-activeness on draft night in moving 
up to #13 and in getting khryapa


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The same old story, only the names have changed. Our "cornerstones of the franchse" were talked about in the very same terms. They're elsewhere, now.


those werent Pax's cornerstones. that is the difference.

they were the draft picks of a guy who wanted to leave his longlasting imprint on the organization, once he realized he'd be leaving it soon. two teenagers that never became what you want from high lottery picks.

face it, them and Crawford... have NEVER been as highly thought of around the league as Paxson's draft picks. and the truth bears it out: teams were never banging down the door for Curry/Crawford/Chandler. in each case, we were able to find one team that would do the deal, and give us financial flexibility in return.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm not sure about that, K4E. We beat a lot of teams that look better than us on paper. And really, can you assume that Armstrong and Simmons are "core-worthy?" Moreso than Thomas and Thabo?


Not moreso... but TT better be core-worthy. I'm high on Simmons. Chandler will be good down there.

Paul will hit superstar status. This season. We don't have one of those.

West is really good.

Peja is OK... good 3rd player on a team. 

I like that squad.

I think it beats the Bulls.

Bulls will give then a fight though. Bulls may lose, but the other team will know its been in a WAR!!!!! YAH!!!!


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I mean, honestly, that team beats the Bulls in a 7 game series, right?


Peja's done, and no.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Bulls will give then a fight though. Bulls may lose, but the other team will know its been in a WAR!!!!! YAH!!!!


do you root for the Bulls?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> Peja's done, and no.


No ****. We smoke that team in a 7 game series. But I do think that team can be a playoff team in the West next year. Barely. 

Its definitely an up and comer, and a good place professionaly for Tyson to land.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Bulls will give then a fight though. Bulls may lose, but the other team will know its been in a WAR!!!!! YAH!!!!


This is really what bugs me more than anything about some bulls fans and posters here: The idea that "almost good enough" should be good enough. It isn't. I want a team capable of establishing a DYNASTY....not the sixers, pacers and nets of a few years ago (teams that went to the finals and haven't sniffed it since).

Almost good enough......just isn't good enough.

That means I'm not satisfied with where we are, and YES that means that PAX has some MAJOR proving to do when it comes to building and KEEPING a winner.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I really don't even know if these moves should be pinned on Paxson. My sneaking supicion... although it's obviously not provable... is that he was encouraged to sign Ben and trade Tyson by Reinsdorf. We've seen multiple reports of this.

Clearly, as Good Hope pointed out the other day, it wasn't something really obvious, like Reinsdorf telling Pax, and Pax acting like he'd never thought of it, but it doesn't have to be something that obvious or unsubtle. It could be simply encouragement from a boss. Bosses exercise such power all the time, and Reinsdorf has reportedly done it before (notably with the Jalen Rose deal).

Of course, whether it should or not, these moves _will _be John Paxson's, both to outsiders and to Jerry Reinsdorf, should they go poorly. If Pax had doubts about whether this was the way to go, he should have stuck to his guns, because it's his *** on the line.

Anyway, I'm not ready to say fire him despite my thought that the Tyson for Brown/Smith move is a stupid one. I think we could have held out and gotten more, or just used Tyson, and that we won't contend or get much out of Brown in the next year. Then, we'll miss Tyson as Ben declines, because even though our young players (hopefully Tyrus and next year's pick) should provide solid or even great play, I think there's always room for depth and a game changing defender.

We can still win in the long run, but our chances got somewhat smaller with this move, and therefore it's a bad one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You know good and well if Reinsdorf did either of those things to current and beloved Bulls players you'd be calling him a cheap ******* until the cows came home. And thats fine. It would probably be warranted.


You're reading me wrong on this one, Ron. Michael Finley was Allan Houston, only with the guts to play through his injuries. I would have applauded Reinsdorf's cutting him if we'd been in the same boat. 

Nash is another story, but the track record for 30+ guards is usually not pretty. And what Nash is doing is basically unprecedented. My final opinion on that would have boiled down to specific dollar amounts.



> We'll know if Jerry will put his money where his mouth is within a couple of years as Hinrich, Noc, Deng, Gordon and Duhon come up for extensions.


Yeah, yeah, I know. Until it happens, though, I'll plan on the worst just so I'm not too surprised by anything.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> This is really what bugs me more than anything about some bulls fans and posters here: *The idea that "almost good enough" should be good enough.* It isn't. I want a team capable of establishing a DYNASTY....not the sixers, pacers and nets of a few years ago (teams that went to the finals and haven't sniffed it since).
> 
> Almost good enough......just isn't good enough.
> 
> That means I'm not satisfied with where we are, and YES that means that PAX has some MAJOR proving to do when it comes to building and KEEPING a winner.


Who thinks that?

But good luck with that Dynasty thing. Those are easy come by.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Then, we'll miss Tyson as Ben declines


thats when Tyrus and his normal-sized hands come into play.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> Peja's done, and no.


 Peja's done? He's still in his 20's and coming off some really good numbers with the Pacers. Sure he was hurt in the last series the Pacers had in playoffs but it was nothing near career ending and shouldn't effect him in the future.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Gosh, then I guess Reinsdorf's willingness to spend $15 million per on a 32 year old player proves he's just that much more willing to spend than Cuban.




I've said this in another thread, but I'll restate it. Cuban let Nash walk, yes, but he went and got multiple guys to fill his void. Terry, Harris, and Armstrong. Theres really no comparison to be made to this situation unless the Bulls get another servicable big with the remaining cap space. Tyrus might be the Terry of the situation, and PJ is looking like Armstrong, where's our Terry. the guy who can serivably hold down the spot who we know for sure has something left in the tank?

And the Finley situation, yeah, salary dump. But it just so happened that they had both Stackhouse and Daniels at his spot, so again bad comparison. We have Tyrus, who may or may not even end up as a power forward ultimately, and PJ, who isn't gonna be around that long.

As it is now, the frontline looks to be severely lacking in depth, way too much rides on PJ this year, and if another big isn't signed, not only will we have nothing to show for Chandler, but the cap space will have not been entirely used, which would be a waste of a good opportunity to get the frontcourt depth thats going to be needed in the next couple of years when the team is a true championship contender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Almost good enough......just isn't good enough.


Don't do nothin halfway, don't believe in maybe!!!

http://www.orange32.com/grabowski/


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, yeah, I know. Until it happens, though, I'll plan on the worst just so I'm not too surprised by anything.


I wouldn't have it any other way, Scott. 

And if I did want it another way, you wouldn't oblige anyway. :wink:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> This is really what bugs me more than anything about some bulls fans and posters here: The idea that "almost good enough" should be good enough. It isn't. I want a team capable of establishing a DYNASTY....not the sixers, pacers and nets of a few years ago (teams that went to the finals and haven't sniffed it since).


newsflash: this is the offseason to add people. we wont have money next year. dynasty or not, this is when we have to get better. are we doing all we can do? here:

we got the best free agent available. Garnett is not on the market. Jermaine will not be traded within the division. I love how all these people attack what is going on this offseason, but arent bothering to indicate all the instant-dynasty-moves Pax has turned down in the last few days.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Who thinks that?


Have you been reading these threads lately?

Do you think we are NBA finals ready now?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

So, further salary dumps down the line? OR is Pax's reupping the core? Yes to both, I'd say--some aspects of the core, are from the Bulls' management point of view, "rotton to the core" and can be duly jettisoned for filler and/or future considerations.

1. KH: 100% certainty.
2. Nocioni: 100% certainty.
3. Deng: I'd go 50/50: fill in the analogy, skill-wise: Tyson is to Ben Wallace as Deng is to Noc. Uh-oh, redundancy...
4. Ben: 10 -20%, ah yell, why don't we go with the big fat zero on this one---- Reinsdorf goes Full Frontal Sterling and gives Pax his marching orders to little Ben to a certain team in the Big Apple. Just doesn't seem to want to play the game the "right way", this one...say, don't we have a 2-guard on a nice rookie contract who'll do just nicely for now, until we can draft another youngster on another rookie contract to replace him....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> I've said this in another thread, but I'll restate it. Cuban let Nash walk, yes, but he went and got multiple guys to fill his void. Terry, Harris, and Armstrong. Theres really no comparison to be made to this situation unless the Bulls get another servicable big with the remaining cap space. Tyrus might be the Terry of the situation, and PJ is looking like Armstrong, *where's our Terry.* the guy who can serivably hold down the spot who we know for sure has something left in the tank?


Um, Ben Wallace?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> newsflash: this is the offseason to add people. we wont have money next year. dynasty or not, this is when we have to get better. are we doing all we can do? here:
> 
> we got the best free agent available. Garnett is not on the market. Jermaine will not be traded within the division. I love how all these people attack what is going on this offseason, but arent bothering to indicate all the instant-dynasty-moves Pax has turned down in the last few days.


That's a very narrow minded and short sighted view of my argument. But that's to be expected from anyone defending "the corporation".

This organization doesn't have a good track record for signing and keeping its players. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains.

As I stated before you twisted my argument: PAX has some PROVING to do (meaning I haven't made up my mind yet). 

EDIT: Which is to say, he'd better keep this core that he has so lauded intact, since he will no doubt point to that as a primary reason for the salary dump.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Easy way out. Declare it to be so with no accountability later. Edited. Personal attack.


I was trying to resolve the discussion. What did you mean?


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Been skimming through this whole thread, and jesus do people know how to make things gloomy.

You know, I've always been proud to be a Bulls fan, but I have to say, Bulls fans are among the most dramatic, whiny, complainy, and even masochistic fanbase I have seen in the league. It's hard to stand sometimes, truly.

And let me say first off that I'm not a supporter of the Tyson trade at all. Outside of Gordon, Tyson was my favorite player on this team, and now he's gone for a 37 year old vet and a young headcase, but you know what I'm not gonna cry foul. 

We're in a better position now than we have been since the Jordan years. After Krause, Paxson has been a godsend of a GM. He's done enough for this orginization in the past few years for me to believe that we'll be fine with his GM'ing, whether I agree with his moves (like the Curry fiasco) or not (like this Chandler one).

But for some reason, the Bulls fanbase has always maintained its depression throughout.

Tyson Chandler was one of the least popular players in this whole damn forum until he got traded, now he's Captain ****ing America. And as much as I liked Chandler, let's be honest, he's not a star, nor will he ever be. And he's easily replacable. In fact, he's *upgradable*.

It's like we like to torture ourselves. Our players are the worst in the world, until they are traded. Then they are stellar. Please.

Eddy Curry is a ****ing softy. A doughboy who will never amount to anything remotely intimidating.

Tyson Chandler, god bless him, is offensively inept, and will always be so. Luckily for him, his defense and rebounding will keep him in the league.

Crawford is finally showing something, but not enough to make Paxson start kicking himself in the rear end. His decision making is still quite idiotic at times.

PJ Brown and JR Smith? Yeah, I don't like it either. But I'm willing to take Pax's word for it and see how things turn out. 

And this doesn't mean that I don't criticize his decisions either. It just means I don't turn this into something epic. Some extraordinary post or thread about how he needs to leave this franchise.

But **** it what do I know? The better philosophy is to ask for Pax's head, ***** about it countlessly until he's gone one way or another, then when the new GM comes along, allow a short honeymoon period, then press REPEAT, and continue in this cycle until we get Red ****ing Auebach to GM this team, along with Larry Brown as the coach. So with that in mind...

*Fire Pax Now!*


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

well if Gordon isnt retained it will have to do with these factors:

1) he hurts you as a small SG, making Kirk do more on defense 
2) he may not become a load carrying scorer, but rather kind of a sparkplug type that gets hot and disappears (and does not get to the stripe with consistency)


if #2 gets turned around, then #1 is more bearable. but if #2 doesnt change, we may opt to not bring back Ben, in favor a prototypical MLE type SG.




of course all that reasoning will mean nothing since the easier solution is calling bulls brass cheap.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Um, Ben Wallace?


Nope,he's Dampier. He's the big center signing, power forward/backup center is the hole, just as point guard was Dallas'.

An A offseason would have been adding Wallace, adding another serviceable big, and keeping Chandler.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> I was trying to resolve the discussion. What did you mean?


I meant that its easy to simply conclude things. And my post was deservedly edited. I used the words "simpleton's argument " when I should have said "simple argument". My bad.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> thats when Tyrus and his normal-sized hands come into play.


Sure, but why just have Tyrus when you can have Tyrus and Tyson both?

And personally I don't think Tyrus will be anything resembling Ben as a player.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> well if Gordon isnt retained it will have to do with these factors:
> 
> 1) he hurts you as a small SG, making Kirk do more on defense
> 2) he may not become a load carrying scorer, but rather kind of a sparkplug type that gets hot and disappears (and does not get to the stripe with consistency)
> ...


That sounds like pre-emptive posturing. If Gordon is not resigned, then this move was all the more unnecessary. But enough about that. If #1 is indeed the case, then the time to move Gordon was THIS offseason, NOT the NEXT.

And if #2 does turn around, it makes #1 look more foolish.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I meant that its easy to simply conclude things. And my post was deservedly edited. I used the words "simpleton's argument " when I should have said "simple argument". My bad.



Either way, you're acting like an *******. You should have just kept the first.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Pay Ton said:


> Been skimming through this whole thread, and jesus do people know how to make things gloomy.
> 
> You know, I've always been proud to be a Bulls fan, but I have to say, Bulls fans are among the most dramatic, whiny, complainy, and even masochistic fanbase I have seen in the league. It's hard to stand sometimes, truly.


Nice post, no kidding! Reading through all the other team's forums over the last few days I find the Bulls are the envy of most of the league. 95% of them are hailing our team and the moves Paxson has made, and yet only in the Bulls forum do I find insanely idiotic threads like "Fire Paxson Now" *sigh*


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> well if Gordon isnt retained it will have to do with these factors:
> 
> 1) he hurts you as a small SG, making Kirk do more on defense
> 2) he may not become a load carrying scorer, but rather kind of a sparkplug type that gets hot and disappears (and does not get to the stripe with consistency)
> ...


John Paxon, is that you???? Oh, wait, I'll use British English: Are you Paxon in disguise??


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> John Paxon, is that you???? Oh, wait, I'll use British English: Are you Paxon in disguise??


I thought i was the only one who read it that way......


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pay Ton said:


> Been skimming through this whole thread, and jesus do people know how to make things gloomy.
> 
> You know, I've always been proud to be a Bulls fan, but I have to say, Bulls fans are among the most dramatic, whiny, complainy, and even masochistic fanbase I have seen in the league. It's hard to stand sometimes, truly.
> 
> ...


I love you.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I just want to add to this discussion that PJ Brown is an expiring contract this year. That means that we could considerably trade him before the deadline if a superstar, or even a good post player, is available. 

Now, I'm not expecting that to happen, but I also was not expecting Paxson to use his top draft pick on a slighly crazy kid who claims to want to "take his opponents' souls," trade up and draft a Euro, and throw $15 mil per year at Sir Afro.

At this point, I'm a little less sure as to what John Paxson might do.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Either way, you're acting like an *******. You should have just kept the first.


True.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I just want to add to this discussion that PJ Brown is an expiring contract this year. That means that we could considerably trade him before the deadline if a superstar, or even a good post player, is available.
> 
> Now, I'm not expecting that to happen, but I also was not expecting Paxson to use his top draft pick on a slighly crazy kid who claims to want to "take his opponents' souls," trade up and draft a Euro, and throw $15 mil per year at Sir Afro.
> 
> At this point, I'm a little less sure as to what John Paxson might do.


I think Jalen Rose will be available


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I give up.

All hail john paxson. He can do no wrong. And any criticism of him is unjustified and the critic should be burned at the stake.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think Jalen Rose will be available


**exit ben gordon**


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> It's like we like to torture ourselves. Our players are the worst in the world, until they are traded. Then they are stellar. Please.


Great post, first of all. But this quote in particular is the single most confusing thing that I just can't seem to understand. It's been going on ever since I joined this forum. The Bulls would have a terrible basketball product on the floor, and yet the fans here aren't willing to give up the players responsible for anything short of Kevin Garnett.

Now mind you, Chandler has helped us grab quite a few W's the past few years; but still, he's a highly flawed basketball player. You really have to wonder about his head sometimes. And that esophogus problem he had last year? What if that continues to be an obstacle? Was it mental? Botton line, Tyson has a ton of question marks. The squad we have now has far fewer question marks. 

Honestly, in 1-2 years from now it might be the Hornets looking for a salary dump. This trade has just as much bust potential for them as it does us. Like I said before, I think most folks are peeved because this reeks of Uncle Jerry being "cheap" (which I could care less about so much as we have a good team). They don't even consider the fact that we're looking dead set for 50 wins next year, save for injuries. Whatever...I guess we'll just have to wait and see the end product; not like that will even be enough to silence the doubters.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> I give up.
> 
> All hail john paxson. He can do no wrong. And any criticism of him is unjustified and the critic should be burned at the stake.



why is it necessarily hailing Paxson. 

as soon as Ben was signed, I was glad that we had added a difference maker. I was also concerned about what would happen to our payroll.

Paxson then went and got rid of our most problematic contract.



i just dont understand what about that is so difficult to understand. people who want to spend tons of money now on Al Harrington or whatever... they evidently dont think much of the team that nearly beat Miami (all with a very incomplete frontcourt)


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The players play their hearts out and get back-stabbed in return.
> 
> 
> Sham said:
> ...





DaBullz said:


> Dumars is going to look like a genius partway through the season.
> 
> 
> Ron Cey said:
> ...


I'm sure DaBullz just accidentally forgot to reply to these. Oops! :biggrin:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> they evidently dont think much of the team that nearly beat Miami (all with a very incomplete frontcourt)


Actually, I don't think much of last years team. Last years team was not good enough. They were entertaining, but not good enough. This years team isn't good enough either, though they will likely be more entertaining. And no, I don't want Harrington anywhere near this team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> I give up.
> 
> All hail john paxson. He can do no wrong. And any criticism of him is unjustified and the critic should be burned at the stake.



Always look on the bright side of life.......










Hey neighbor.


----------



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

Bulls fans seem to blindly trust Paxson. I think that's very negligent. I can't tell you how annoying it was when reading threads before the draft. "I trust Pax will get the BPA, and when he does, I will root for both Pax and player come armageddon" or "No, I dont want player X, because he isnt a PAX/SKILES type of player". Its amazing how everyone is turning into sheep. Valuing hard work and defense shouldn't automatically turn into blind faith and worship of Bulls management.

Just watch. When this team fails to win a ship because of Paxson and/or Skiles, we'll see who eats the crow first.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Actually, I don't think much of last years team. Last years team was not good enough. They were entertaining, but not good enough. This years team isn't good enough either, though they will likely be more entertaining. And no, I don't want Harrington anywhere near this team.


last year's team was incomplete, in that it did not have a real frontcourt. what they accomplished in the face of that handicap is what should give you a lot of hope.

the perimeter defense was excellent. in the later stages of the year, when Noc and Deng started driving to the hoop... we became a lot more dangerous offensively.

now we've added frontcourt size, strength (to say the least)

will frontcourt scoring be addressed? unsure. but the way the league is going, there are many ways to play. you cant have everything.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> they evidently dont think much of the team that nearly beat Miami (all with a very incomplete frontcourt)


Yeah, it was by a whisker. We just fell short by 33 points over the last two games.

Observations like this and people genuinely believing that P.J. Brown will be a better player than Tyson Chandler next year make me marvel at the different ways peoples' brains interpret identical inputs.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I'm not upset about losing chandler. I'm upset about getting the worst end of a trade, yet again. We haven't won a single one, including Krause's last few.


I'd take Luol Deng for a future first round pick as a good trade. Eddy Curry HAHAHHAHA, I see what side of the fence you're on. The Baby Bulls still the future to you?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, it was by a whisker. We just fell short by 33 points over the last two games.
> 
> Observations like this and people genuinely believing that P.J. Brown will be a better player than Tyson Chandler next year make me marvel at the different ways peoples' brains interpret identical inputs.


games 1 and 2 just get totally forgotten?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

See your own thread as to my reasons for hating this trade. I hope you are right, but I believe you are wrong.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

Awesome. It's time to break out the "Anyone who disagrees with me about whether Pax should be fired thinks he can do no wrong" strawman. This thread shall yet reach new highs.

And I probably shouldn't be saying this, but kukoc4ever, man, you're like the king of incendiary posts. It's getting to the point where, when I login to read the board, anytime I see some random thread getting an inordinate number of responses, I start to suspect you've been involved with your trademark posts: the repeated, negative, one-sentence, snarky jab about how the Bulls suck in one way or another, causing a barrage of responses, bickering, and negativity. You've already made this type of response twice in this thread. And I'm sorry, I just hate it and it makes the board much less enjoyable for me, so I couldn't keep that in any longer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> And I probably shouldn't be saying this, but kukoc4ever, man, you're like the king of incendiary posts. It's getting to the point where, when I login to read the board, anytime I see some random thread getting an inordinate number of responses, I start to suspect you've been involved with your trademark posts: the repeated, negative, one-sentence, snarky jab about how the Bulls suck in one way or another, causing a barrage of responses, bickering, and negativity. You've already made this type of response twice in this thread. And I'm sorry, I just hate it and it makes the board much less enjoyable for me, so I couldn't keep that in any longer.



Thanks for your support.

The Bulls don't suck, BTW. I think they will make the playoffs next season!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> Awesome. It's time to break out the "Anyone who disagrees with me about whether Pax should be fired thinks he can do no wrong" strawman. This thread shall yet reach new highs.


No different than the "Anyone who criticises pax is a hatemonger and a fabricator of perpetual negativity" strawman....

Where has your indignation been as that particular insinuation has been trotted out over and over again over the past couple days????


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

I'm curious as to what the Pax haters would have done this offseason. A salary dump of an incredibly ineffective player is sure setting people over the deep end.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> No different than the "Anyone who criticises pax is a hatemonger and a fabricator of perpetual negativity" strawman....
> 
> Where has your indignation been as that particular insinuation has been trotted out over and over again over the past couple days????


See below....



> I'm curious as to what the *Pax haters* would have done this offseason.


Case in point.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, it was by a whisker. We just fell short by 33 points over the last two games.
> 
> Observations like this and people genuinely believing that P.J. Brown will be a better player than Tyson Chandler next year make me marvel at the different ways peoples' brains interpret identical inputs.


I genuinely believe that PJ will have a better season than Tyson next year in my Bulls team. So sue me.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

PJ Brown's career averages are better than Tyson's. I don't think it's preposterous that he could have a better season next year, even though I'd pick Tyson to have the better year if I were a betting man.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> No different than the "Anyone who criticises pax is a hatemonger and a fabricator of perpetual negativity" strawman....
> 
> Where has your indignation been as that particular insinuation has been trotted out over and over again over the past couple days????


While I agree with your initial point, don't you find it funny that you, the founding member of that club in your sig (which I agree with, BTW), which is all about establishing some sort of middle ground in this thing, is making a post like this, where you make it out like everybody else is on one end of the stick?



The Krakken said:


> I give up.
> 
> All hail john paxson. He can do no wrong. And any criticism of him is unjustified and the critic should be burned at the stake.


Exonerating Pax about any questionable decision he might make is about as equally unfair as giving him no leeway and calling for his head everytime he makes a change with this ball club.

I don't enjoy the decision of letting Chandler go either, but I'm not gonna be overdramatic about it.

I mean, "Fire Pax Now"? This whole thread should be sent into TNT studios, where it could go into one of those commercials that shows a montage of clips with the caption: "We Know Drama."

It's all been filled with hyperbole after hyperbole after hyperbole.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Kudos for the use of the word 'hyperbole'.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

The reason why some of the people here are spewing so much vitriolic bile over this is because Pax and Skiles are succeeding and they just can't bear it. Pax and Skiles had hardly arrived and the "Fire Pax" and "Fire Skiles" garbage started. Now if we treated these whiners like that thet'd go ballistic. But its one standard for them and another for those they don't like. So we had the incessant whinging over Pax and Skiles and their moves and choices. Of course these legendary basketball geniuses here know more than any expert, as well as knowing the inner workings of the Bulls and the personal thoughts of the key Bulls decision makers, putting them on a par with the Almighty, at least in their own minds. And so they feel free to spew their offal on the rest of us who are trying to enjoy our success after 6 years in the wilderness. Spirited discussion is one thing but some of this stuff goes beyond that.

Now the moment we criticize them, the predictable defenses are raised. First is the "we have a right to say what we want, its free speech." Of course so do the rest us who disagree, but when we do, they get very upset. After all, they can't let logic and fairness get in the way of their rants. Then again, no speech is ever entirely free, thats why I can't come into your home and do whatever I want. Second up is the "I'm a victim" ploy when people respond negatively to them. That's like the mugger who attacks his victim, and when the victim defends himself forcefully and effectively, the mugger then claims he is the victim, ie "I've got the right to crap on you and any attempt by you to defend yourself is offensive." Behind all of this is usually something else, a variation of "its all about me, my feelings, my emoting." When these Einstein's don't get what they want they act like petulant children throwing a temper tantrum. Basically, because Pax and Skiles haven't done what they want, then they deem themselves justified. The third predictable defense is the one that says "our motives are good, we just want whats best for the Bulls." Translation - They wrap their vice in an apparent virtue so how dare we disagree with them. Thus the ends justify the means for them, at least until they're the ones who are getting the raw deal. Then its all about their rights and screw the rest of us.

A friend of mine at college used to give out "Certified ***hole" awards for people who were really obnoxious and didn't give a rip about anyone else. On a few occasions he would go a tep further and award "Ontological ***hole" awards, ie this was now part of their being, not just an incident of behavior. Frankly some of the folks here are moving up into the latter category with the way they have lost all reason and sanity over these moves.

PS: As my record of posts here will show, I'm am normally mild mannered and interested in supporting the Bulls. But some of the whining and vitriol here are beyond the pale and call for a response.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

The Krakken said:


> See below....
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point.


What has Pax done right in your eyes? Try answering the question next time instead of a smart *** response.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

KwaZulu said:


> The reason why some of the people here are spewing so much vitriolic bile over this is because Pax and Skiles are succeeding


Yeah, apparently David Stern called a press conference today to announce he was saving everyone the trouble of playing the next few seasons and just going to award the NBA championship to the Bulls. 

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

Seriously guys, this is getting rather personal and rather silly on all sides. It's completely possible for folks to honestly disagree, and the fact someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a "certified *******" a "petulant child" or a Painglossian kool-aid drinker. Calling them things says more about you than it does about them. If someone doesn't like a move, it's because they want to see the Bulls do well and it's a bad move. If someone does like a move, it's because they think it'll pan out.

There's really not a lot more to it than that. Talk hoops and leave the personal stuff alone. There are plenty of ways to get your opinion across without that. This will all be settled on the court in due time, and you guys need to keep in my we're all fans here. 

Lighten up. It's a game. It should be fun. Please.


----------

