# How would YOU fix Headbandgate?



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Just about all of us acknowledge that Headbandgate is a big problem that is threatening the Bulls season and possibly beyond that. 

Let's leave aside blame. If you were John Paxson, how would you fix Headbandgate?

Me? I'd let Wallace wear his headband and not have his ankles taped. I'd explain to Scott Skiles in private that while I am in lockstep with him every bit of the way, Ben Wallace has earned the right to have a few minor team rules bent in his favor. I'd explain to the players that yes, the rules will still apply to them up to and until such time as they have won a championship, made some All-Star teams, etc. I think the players are grown-ups and will view this as an incentive, not as an opportunity to run riot over Skiles.

But Wallace would need to have a press conference apologizing for his conduct in which he expresses his regret for going about this in completely the wrong fashion. He would sit out one game and pay a fine of $100,000 to be donated to the charity of his choice.

Hopefully, this would be the quickest way to get things moving forward again. 

Do you agree? Or would you be on the phone shopping Wallace right now? Or would you Tim Thomas him for the next four years? Would you fire Skiles? Let's hear it!


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Does anyone know any logical reason for the headband band rule in the first place?

Are they afraid that players will use the headband for endorsements (which the league
forbids anyway)?

It's one things to have rules that serve a purpose. It's a completely different thing
to have rules that treat players as though they're in elementary school and have to
follow rules "just because" these are the rules.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Me? I'd let Wallace wear his headband and not have his ankles taped.


I'm more curious to know more about the ankles, I mean if he doesn't prefer it and he's not playing that well, then why do it?



> But Wallace would need to have a press conference apologizing for his conduct in which he expresses his regret for going about this in completely the wrong fashion. He would sit out one game and pay a fine of $100,000 to be donated to the charity of his choice.


Agreed.



> Ben Wallace has earned the right to have a few minor team rules bent in his favor. I'd explain to the players that yes, the rules will still apply to them up to and until such time as they have won a championship, made some All-Star teams, etc. I think the players are grown-ups and will view this as an incentive


Honestly wouldn't bend it in his favour, I would sit down with everyone and say the headband rule is finished. There really isn't a need for it and it could give this team some character: when Ben releases the fro the others put it on aswell, then they're all ready to rumble!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ztect said:


> Does anyone know any logical reason for the headband band rule in the first place?
> 
> Are they afraid that players will use the headband for endorsements (which the league
> forbids anyway)?
> ...


But the rule is there, and it means something to Skiles. 

So what is your solution going forward?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

step said:


> Honestly wouldn't bend it in his favour, I would sit down with everyone and say the headband rule is finished. There really isn't a need for it and it could give this team some character: when Ben releases the fro the others put it on aswell, then they're all ready to rumble!


That's an interesting notion, but I think it doesn't leave much of an opportunity for Skiles to save face (which is important).


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Me? I'd let Wallace wear his headband and not have his ankles taped. I'd explain to Scott Skiles in private that while I am in lockstep with him every bit of the way, Ben Wallace has earned the right to have a few minor team rules bent in his favor. I'd explain to the players that yes, the rules will still apply to them up to and until such time as they have won a championship, made some All-Star teams, etc. I think the players are grown-ups and will view this as an incentive, not as an opportunity to run riot over Skiles.
> 
> But Wallace would need to have a press conference apologizing for his conduct in which he expresses his regret for going about this in completely the wrong fashion. He would sit out one game and pay a fine of $100,000 to be donated to the charity of his choice.


i'm pretty much in agreement with this opinion, however the press conference, imo, overdramatizes the issue and would be a lame attempt to "humble" wallace, and as such i don't feel is necessary. having ankles taped *should* be a personal choice issue, particularly for one with ben's tenure.

i believe such matters should be team/organization only matters and handled totally in-house. the fact that a thread like this (and all the accompanying nonsensical unbasketball related drivel) exists only feeds the consumer/fan hunger for all things bull.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

headbands are good. if ur not gunna have headbands. then dont have wrist tape, knee rings, or any type of acessory. just let them play naked if ur going to ban headbands.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I don't think there's anything to fix. I think Ben is a diva, and, had the headband rule not been in place, would have publicly and loudly complained about something else. He was clearly mad and embarrassed about being benched the previous game. The headband, or this new injury, is the excuse. 

I think focusing on the issue makes it worse, because there will undoubtedly be future issues. Skiles should get Ben some more offensive touches in the next game, and tell Duhon to subtly compliment Wallace and appeal to his pride. Treat him carefully the next few weeks. Don't comment on it in the press, let the issue be strictly internal, and let it die.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

By telling Wallace to be a man and "shut up and play" with a straight face.

Maybe it is a stupid rule, but Wallace has no case whatsoever the way he openly violated the team rule and challege Skile.

No place at all and I can't believe a lot of posters tried to side with Wallace on this matter.

The matter is not about the headband. It's about the fact he tried to challenge the rule and Skile in blatantly open way.

That is what matters and a lot of posters seem to close their eyes to.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The solution involves assumptions. 

First Assumption: This is Reinsdorf's rule and not Skiles' rule. If true, Paxson and Skiles need to convince Reinsdorf to drop the rule. If Reinsdorf will drop it, then Skiles loses no face with the team, as he can basically tell them that he was required to enforce it, but no longer, so lets just get on with it. Of course, this does not solve the problem of Ben Wallace's insubordination, which is still the biggest issue here (which for some inconceivable notion continues to be largely overlooked on this board). Therefore, I'm not a big fan of this one.

Second Assumption: This is Skiles rule. If true, Ben Wallace makes a public apology and never wears a headband again. If he refuses, he sits until he concedes or is traded. This is my favorite, because it addresses the real issue, not the phony ones we seem to be currently distracted by. 

Last option: Hinrich and PJ stick up for Benedict, rally the team to support him, and as a group they ask either Skiles or Reinsdorf (depending on whose rule it is) to set it aside for the good of the team and as a sign of good faith and trust. This, of course, still fails to address Wallace's completely unforgivable behaviour and backstabbing his teammates and his coach because he wasn't allowed to wear an elastic ring around his head.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> By telling Wallace to be a man and "shut up and play" with a straight face.
> 
> Maybe it is a stupid rule, but Wallace has no case whatsoever the way he openly violated the team rule and challege Skile.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sorry, fellas. When PaxSkiles signed up Wallace, they knew they were getting a player who was prone to acts of insubordination. That one's on them.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry, fellas. When PaxSkiles signed up Wallace, they knew they were getting a player who was prone to acts of insubordination. That one's on them.


So there is no accountability on player at all? 

Sorry, Scott, this one is on Wallace and Wallace only.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry, fellas. When PaxSkiles signed up Wallace, they knew they were getting a player who was prone to acts of insubordination. That one's on them.


I agree with that. But what does that have to do with finding a solution?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So there is no accountability on player at all?
> 
> Sorry, Scott, this one is on Wallace and Wallace only.


Sorry, lgtwins. Caveat emptor, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, a leopard doesn't change his spots, etc.

Reminder: Ben Wallace isn't the GM of the Chicago Bulls, John Paxson is. 

Ben Wallace acted inappropriately in the extreme. Nowhere have I disputed this.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

This is the Bulls organization, not the Wallace organization. Paxson and co. set the rules. Now, if suddenly Ben can change things just by acting like an spoiled child, it leaves a great example for the rest of the players many of whom are very young. So after that, should Tyrus listen to Skiles or follow Ben's path?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree with that. But what does that have to do with finding a solution?


Nothing . . . just an off-topic response to an off-topic post.

All I'm saying is that if avoiding acts of player subordination is at the top of the Bulls mission statement, then Wallace shouldn't have been signed in the first place. And the reason most posters don't care about the insubordination is because realistically it was a matter of when, not if.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Me? I'd let Wallace wear his headband and not have his ankles taped. I'd explain to Scott Skiles in private that while I am in lockstep with him every bit of the way, Ben Wallace has earned the right to have a few minor team rules bent in his favor. I'd explain to the players that yes, the rules will still apply to them up to and until such time as they have won a championship, made some All-Star teams, etc. I think the players are grown-ups and will view this as an incentive, not as an opportunity to run riot over Skiles.
> 
> But Wallace would need to have a press conference apologizing for his conduct in which he expresses his regret for going about this in completely the wrong fashion. He would sit out one game and pay a fine of $100,000 to be donated to the charity of his choice.


Replace the press conference with an apology to the team and coaching staff. Have the coaching staff also call his actions out in front of the team.

Have the coaching staff admit it's a frivilous rule that did have some merit but obviously is not worth the trouble. Kill it for the whole team. Changing your mind about a small philosophy like headbands doesn't make the coaching staff lose face IMO (unless he's called a flipflopper, i which case George Bush will be our next coach). 

The idea behinde the headband rule - a clean cut look, less individuality. Explain to the players we are changing the rule because 1)Wallace's headband is more important to our sales than being clean cut for the time being, we didn't foresee bringing in the poster boy of headbands when we made the rule. 2) The rule isn't league wide because it isn't a huge deal and it's certainly not worth this distraction when we are 4-9. 

Give Wallace a games fine for the insubordinate act, but don't suspend him, really would make no sense since he played in the same game.

The ankle taping thing probably should remain. I must say I hated playing with my ankles taped, but my ankles aren't worth a ton of other people's money.

The music rule has to stay and Wallace needs to shut up about it right now. Why should everyone have to listen to his music?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> This is the Bulls organization, not the Wallace organization. Paxson and co. set the rules. Now, if suddenly Ben can change things just by acting like an spoiled child, it leaves a great example for the rest of the players many of whom are very young. So after that, should Tyrus listen to Skiles or follow Ben's path?


So your solution is . . . ?

Trade Wallace? Cut him outright? Tim Thomas him for the next 4 years?


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

Fire Skiles. Unleash Sweetney. Hire Larry Brown. Collect title(s).


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

The headband is symbol of what some see as being wrong with the Bulls organization

If you can't conform to the high school mentality and do things per the the very
narrow way prescribed and thus abide by inane rules just because there are inane rules
then you get traded away for cap space.

This methodology may work for young players for awhile, but eventually very few star 
or quality players will want to play for an organization that doesn't treat them like adults.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'm with your solution, Scott. Although, I think less than $100,000 is appropriate.

The only other thing is that I'd like Pax, Skiles, and Ben just to sit down in a room and talk about it like men. Tell Ben they want to hear his concerns, explain their position, rationale for the rule (if any), etc. I would think an open dialogue is best. Stress that their doors are always open when he's got a problem. Perhaps it wasn't like that in Detroit, but it is here, etc.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> So your solution is . . . ?
> 
> Trade Wallace? Cut him outright? Tim Thomas him for the next 4 years?


I think Wallace should get his act straight and follow the rules. The rule was here before he arrived, and also all of the sudden he comes with this act? Weird.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Good thread!

As an aside, it's been interesting seeing the different viewpoints and interpretations on this matter.

Now, onto my vesion of a solution...

I'm assuming that the no headband rule, along with the ankle taping and lockerroom music are all agreed upon by Skiles, Pax and Reinsdorf. Where they originated from is really inconsequential. With that assumption I think the direction needs to come from Pax. There's also the separate and more important act of Wallaces' blatant insubordination.

I, personally, view the headband as optional equipment for a player. Much like a knee ring or an elbow sleeve. It's a matter of personal preference but the item in question neither enhances or alters the players ability to play. 

Whatever the resolution, Pax has to direct it. If he decides to let Ben wear the headband, he needs to make that option available to all players but he also needs to let it be know that it was a team decision and not preferential treatement to Wallace. Pax needs to do whatever it takes to make sure Skiles isn't viewed as a loser in all this. As for Wallaces' actions - he needs a pretty decent slap on the wrist. A fine and a one-game suspension. Wallace should apologize to the team behind closed doors. On the ankle taping - that's a tough one. Taping your ankles is pretty important. I'm thinking Wallace can deal with it. He's got his headband and a moral victory in his eyes. I'd probably tell him to suck it up, that the tape is for his own protection. As for the music, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Keep it to yourself and all is good. It's completely disrespectful to his teammates and hardly the actions of a team captain. If he's got a problem with that I'd (playing the part of Pax) tell him to grow up and strap a pair on and show some respect to his teammates.

I'd (as Pax) would get Skiles and Wallace in a room and deal with them as adults. I'd also let it be known that I'm the end-all-be-all here and that ultimately whatever decision is arrived at - it's mine and they need to adhere to it.

Deal with it quickly. Deal with it in-house and move on.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Me? I'd let Wallace wear his headband and not have his ankles taped. I'd explain to Scott Skiles in private that while I am in lockstep with him every bit of the way, Ben Wallace has earned the right to have a few minor team rules bent in his favor. I'd explain to the players that yes, the rules will still apply to them up to and until such time as they have won a championship, made some All-Star teams, etc. I think the players are grown-ups and will view this as an incentive, not as an opportunity to run riot over Skiles.


I'm sorry man I hate to disagree with again but I read this from the players perspective and it made the bile rise in my throat. If I'm Lu Deng and I'm playing the best basketball on the team right now and the GM comes in and tells me that unlike perhaps the biggest underachiever on the team up to this point I don't _deserve_ the right to wear a stupid headband, I'd be furious. Then I'd take a look at this player who come onto the team, decided he wanted to be the man and dictate all the rules that I me and my teamates have had no problem obeying for the last few years and I would become even angrier.

I just don't think you can bend the rules unless you're certain neither the other players nor the media will catch wind of it and that's hard to do. I think you keep enforcing the preestablished rules equally for all players, that's all you can do. Try to keep Wallace happy by stroking his ego as much as possible, go easy on him in the press, be as easygoing as possible if you have to enforce any additional rules. You can also talk things out if he's willing. Frank Thomas and Jerry Manual had a huge shouting match in spring training that supposedly cleared the air between them and paved the way for the 2000 division champinship. As others have pointed out numerous times, this can't be just about a headband. Wallaces feels (in my opinion without cause) persecuted. Let him get it off his chest and do your best to convey to him that you're just trying to keep control of your team and treat him the same way you treat everyone else, that he's the captain and needs to set a good example for his teammates.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

First I'd stop calling it headbandgate because this is a stupid situation and nowhere important enough to deserve a -gate suffix.

Second, it's a stupid little situation so give Wallace a stupid little fine that goes to charity. You know one of those fines that sounds like a lot of money to J. Q. Public on the surface because J.Q. got a C in junior high math and doesn't realize that if he sets up a simple ratio that the fine is barely a drop in the bucket to Wallace. Something like $1000/game for the rest of the season. Then the rule is enforced, wallace gets to wear his stupid headband anyway, and some street urchins get a hot meal.

Third, just turn the stinkin' music down. Different people like different kinds of music. This is even stupider than headbandga... I mean, the headband _thing_.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Me? I'd let Wallace wear his headband and not have his ankles taped. I'd explain to Scott Skiles in private that while I am in lockstep with him every bit of the way...


May just be me, but I find this part funny. The real message would be that "I'm in lockstep with you every bit of the way...except when I'm not."

I'm afraid that this one is simple. Wallace needs to play ball sans headband. Period. Full stop.

Personally, I don't need Wallace to apologize publicly or privately (but if I were him, I would apologize to my teammates for risking an important game because I acted like a spoiled child).

This said, Wallace could choose to "Tim Thomas" himself by remaining a total jerkwad. Personally, I half hope Big Ben goes this direction. It might be just the thing to bring this team back together and play the king of FREAKIN' DEFENSE they're capable of playing.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

I forgot...

Fourth, Skiles should show up to a post-game press conference wearing his tie wrapped around his head to show how silly this whole situation is and add another thousand bucks to the pot.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*i would sit john paxson, scott skiles and ben wallace in a room to discuss the matter privately. hopefully this has already occured. i don't think a press conference is needed.* 

pax has to clarify to ben and skiles the origins of the rule. if it's from reinsdorf, then pax needs to explain this. if it's not, he needs to explain why and when the rule was established. and why, upon the signing of ben wallace he was not informed that his "brand identity" was going to be eliminated, because individuality is obviously not allowed on the bulls. 

if it's skiles' rule he needs to explain why there is such a rule and why he won't bend - and don't give the "i won't lose a battle of the wills" explanation, cause he is clearly losing it. (imo)

i think ben wallace should apologize to his teammates - without coaches or training staff present - _yes_, he was insubordinate - and offer to pay a fine (one time only) of $25,000 to be donated to a Bulls charity. ben should continue to tape his ankles (suck it up) and listen to his music privately (that is really obnoxious).

*and i think he should be allowed to wear the headband/armbands. obviously.* 

and believe or not, i think the *bulls owe ben wallace an explanation* as to why his image complete with trademark fro/headband/armbands was used all over town and all over bulls.com this summer to promote his signing and to sell tickets/jerseys/giveaways/keychains/coffeemugs etc. i would seriously like to hear the answer to this, if i were ben wallace.

i would hold a team meeting to discuss the outcome, move on, win the next 6 games (yes, in a row) and let bygones be bygones.

hopefully.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm sorry man I hate to disagree with again but I read this from the players perspective and it made the bile rise in my throat. If I'm Lu Deng and I'm playing the best basketball on the team right now and the GM comes in and tells me that unlike perhaps the biggest underachiever on the team up to this point I don't _deserve_ the right to wear a stupid headband, I'd be furious. Then I'd take a look at this player who come onto the team, decided he wanted to be the man and dictate all the rules that I me and my teamates have had no problem obeying for the last few years and I would become even angrier.
> 
> I just don't think you can bend the rules unless you're certain neither the other players nor the media will catch wind of it and that's hard to do. I think you keep enforcing the preestablished rules equally for all players, that's all you can do. Try to keep Wallace happy by stroking his ego as much as possible, go easy on him in the press, be as easygoing as possible if you have to enforce any additional rules. You can also talk things out if he's willing. Frank Thomas and Jerry Manual had a huge shouting match in spring training that supposedly cleared the air between them and paved the way for the 2000 division champinship. As others have pointed out numerous times, this can't be just about a headband. Wallaces feels (in my opinion without cause) persecuted. Let him get it off his chest and do your best to convey to him that you're just trying to keep control of your team and treat him the same way you treat everyone else, that he's the captain and needs to set a good example for his teammates.


You don't think Luol Deng benefited from star treatment at Duke or the Delbarton School? Come on, he knows the deal -- he's an up-and-coming player who hasn't accomplished dick. Ben Wallace is Ben Wallace. Do you really think Luol would be that angry or go to seed if Ben's tantrum resulted in his being allowed to wear a headband?

I know that the players have pride -- in fact, you're not going to amount to much as a basketball player if you don't have a healthy ego. But they're not children -- they have to know at some level there are different rules for different players.

I don't remember John Paxson complaining about MJ getting to blow off curfew and gamble until 4:00 a.m. the morning of a hugely critical playoff game. Or getting to play sunrise to sunset golf during the playoffs. Or ignoring/defying plays called from the bench.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

transplant said:


> May just be me, but I find this part funny. The real message would be that "I'm in lockstep with you every bit of the way...except when I'm not."
> 
> I'm afraid that this one is simple. Wallace needs to play ball sans headband. Period. Full stop.
> 
> ...


I hear you. :clap2:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The issue with the headband is one of commonality isn't it ?

At least that's the way I understand it 

So if I were Pax I'd call a press conference with Ben and Scott with all 3 wearing headbands 

I'd explain to the asssembled media that's its a petty rule and that I, Pax, am the bigger man to admit so ( I'd have a pre-arranged agreement with Ben Wallace however this is not to resport to measuring sticks against one's appendages in case in takes umbrage at the "bigger man" comment )

In the interests of controlling national obseity I would cut a new deal that everytime the Bulls break a 100 everyone gets a headband instead of dose of saturated fat ..with the caveat that Ben has to at least shoot more than 50% free throws in that win and has to grab at least 15 rebounds a game 

On top of this, and also in the interests of solidarity now that Ben Wallace is our prized recruit and most highly paid player and for the fact that Kirk is our sole Team USA representative and soon to be 2nd highest paid player ...

Not only most all the players wear headbands but they also must grow fro's and let it all out when Ben does or braid rows when Ben says so..kind of like Simon Says 

But I would make them all get a [EDIT: That word's not allowed. Thanks.] wrist tattoo as well

Branding is important ...its picking your symbols that you want to brand for the rest of the herd 

Papa Chair has got this all wrong...its not the great unwashed masses out in the burbs with yessiree middle class palaba which he chooses as the symbolism to get this team going

Its more organic than that 

Bands, Fros n Braids and [Same word] Wrist Band Tattoos 

That's what this team is made of


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Cyanobacteria said:


> First I'd stop calling it headbandgate because this is a stupid situation and nowhere important enough to deserve a -gate suffix.


Wrong. It is the most significant negative incident that has happend to the Chicago Bulls (other than J-Will's career ending injury) in the post-Jordan Era.

It is stupid, I agree. But its stupidity doesn't render it insignificant. It is of enormous significance.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Could you diffuse the whole situation by having a headband giveaway, lifting the rule, and having the whole team wear headbands for a game?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> ben should continue to tape his ankles (suck it up)


I think we all might be glossing over the ankle thing, actually.

If you've played your whole career with untaped ankles (without any problems), it's probably pretty weird/limiting to have to use tape all of a sudden.

It's not inconsistent with some of the comments we've been hearing/reading about Wallace -- "doesn't look like the ben Wallace we know," etc.


----------



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

How would I fix it?

1a. Kidnap Jerry Reinsdorf's family, smuggle them Afghanistan, and then force him to sell the Bulls if he ever wants to see them again.
1b. Fire Scott Skiles
1c. Assassinate Scott Skiles as he's walking out of his home.

1b seems like the only option thats legal.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Could you diffuse the whole situation by having a headband giveaway, lifting the rule, and having the whole team wear headbands for a game?


You probably could.

The only tricky part would be figuring out what dose of sedative would be sufficient to keep Skiles's head from exploding while not rendering him unable to coach an NBA game.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I think we all might be glossing over the ankle thing, actually.
> 
> If you've played your whole career with untaped ankles (without any problems), it's probably pretty weird/limiting to have to use tape all of a sudden.
> 
> It's not inconsistent with some of the comments we've been hearing/reading about Wallace -- "doesn't look like the ben Wallace we know," etc.



Agreed. Tape is another area where I think everyone should defer to the player's preference. Taping up your ankles might bother the guy. 

The music is the only issue I think Wallace should just be told to shut up about.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You probably could.
> 
> The only tricky part would be figuring out what dose of sedative would be sufficient to keep Skiles's head from exploding while not rendering him unable to coach an NBA game.


Agreed, assuming the headband thing is a Skiles rule. If it is, this might be the rare situation where the GM has to step in and undercut him on this issue (coupled with a fine/charity payment thing or something showing that the team doesn't condone Wallace's handling of the situation).


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Fire Skiles, since it's clear we won't be winning any titles with him in the driver's seat. Just solves matters early on.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

I'd probably trade Ben Wallace (perhaps in a deal for KG) before he starts looking & acting any more like an old & washed up Charles Oakley. Maybe talk to him behind closed doors first. If that doesn't work, I'd consider suspending him for a few games before resorting to trading. Brown & Allen can play C for the remainder of the season. Maybe try to bring AD back out of retirement. We'll then use the NY lotto pick to get our C of the future. The way things are going, the season is a wash anyway. I'm affraid this might be just the tip of the iceberg for the Skiles-Wallace relationship. We must deal with it swiftly before the team sinks further. Hopefully they can get Wallace to respond appropriately, but I'm not optimistic.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You don't think Luol Deng benefited from star treatment at Duke or the Delbarton School? Come on, he knows the deal -- he's an up-and-coming player who hasn't accomplished dick. Ben Wallace is Ben Wallace. Do you really think Luol would be that angry or go to seed if Ben's tantrum resulted in his being allowed to wear a headband?
> 
> I know that the players have pride -- in fact, you're not going to amount to much as a basketball player if you don't have a healthy ego. But they're not children -- they have to know at some level there are different rules for different players.
> 
> I don't remember John Paxson complaining about MJ getting to blow off curfew and gamble until 4:00 a.m. the morning of a hugely critical playoff game. Or getting to play sunrise to sunset golf during the playoffs. Or ignoring/defying plays called from the bench.


I think part of the problem is that Ben has come in here as an outsider to a team with several players who have busted their *** to make the playoffs the last couple season. Ben may have accomplished a lot in the league but he hasn't done a whole lot for the Bulls yet. From the articles I've read I get the impression that he's pretty much on his own here. He doesn't seem to have any allies or close friends on the team at this point. If I were a player that healthy confident and pride you mentioned (dead on) would make me somewhat defensive of my friends and teammates and how we've been carrying on the past couple seasons. 

Being the best basketball player to the universe might be the exception to the principle that everyone has to play by the rules. Plus, Jordan had one of the longest tenures of any player on the Bulls. If you're Jud Buchelor and you join the team, you're not going to all of a sudden call out MJ for getting special treatment. Furthermore, staying out late is a lot more discreet than misbehaving on television. Maybe management was able to pretend they didn't know what was going on. Finally, championship veteran teams might be able to handle that type of problem better than young teams that have played around .500 ball.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

*See ya later, Ben!*

...Unless he comes out and makes an apology to the team. I think there's just about zero chance of that happening, though. I also half-wonder if getting himself traded through the headband-wearing wasn't an outcome he considered well in advance, given how unhappy he supposedly has been here.

Am I wrong for getting kind of excited to see what the Bulls would be like with him off the roster?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Just about all of us acknowledge that Headbandgate is a big problem that is threatening the Bulls season and possibly beyond that.
> 
> Let's leave aside blame. If you were John Paxson, how would you fix Headbandgate?
> 
> ...


What pax would do... is to give away afro+headbands at the ballgame as a promotion!

How absurd is that?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So there is no accountability on player at all?
> 
> Sorry, Scott, this one is on Wallace and Wallace only.



No, its on Paxson.

Any fool who follows the NBA knows that if you tell a prideful star they can't do X, you run the risk of issues galore. If you told Ben Wallace that he can't wear a fro or can't wear a headband, I have no doubt the result would not be positive. 

Wallace could pout. Wallace could pretend to have a "stiff back." Wallace could freaking EROB on us. He has his rings. He has his awards. He has a mountain of F.U. money. He could half-*** it. He could try to undermine yet another coach (he's done it before, no reason to think he would not try it here).

We signed this guy to rip down rebounds, block shots and play his *** off. If you piss him off, you run the risk of him not doing this.

Right? Wrong? Who cares? If Ben Wallace isn't playing his *** off and there is something that PaxSkiles could do to make him play that way again, they should be prepared to do so, especially when its letting him wear his signature headband.

If the goal is to win NBA Championships, what PaxSkiles are doing is wrong. Of course, I think the PaxSkiles mentality in the NBA is a strike against you from the start. 

If the goal is to maintain the jib, "the right way" and other such nonsense, then carry on PaxSkiles. The UC will be full one way or the other. 

Just keep signing rookies and jib players, stay away from stars like Ben Wallace, be content with .500 and giving a team a decent run in the 1st round before you are dispatched and feel holier than thou as you watch the rest of the NBA playoffs on your TV.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, its on Paxson.


Of course you would say it's on Paxon and Scottmay totally agree with you. AGAIN! :yay:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4226360&postcount=137


----------



## doomraisin (Jun 23, 2006)

Bench Wallace until he starts playing well. That simple. 

I think it would be an excellent source of motivation for the rest of the team, and a humiliation so intense for Wallace that, realizing his career will end in disgrace, straightens up and starts ballin.

I wouldn't let him sit at home or anything like that. I'd play him, and if he mopes around, sit him. Night after night. Let Malik Allen and the rest of the crew know that it does not matter how much you're getting paid, if you don't produce, you don't play. 

I think this strategy would rally the rest of the Bulls quite well, and make a bench-sitting Wallace a stark example of what happens to a prima donna on Paxon and Skiles' watch.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So there is no accountability on player at all?
> 
> Sorry, Scott, this one is on Wallace and Wallace only.


Huh? 

I largely agree that Wallace must be held accountable for the sneaky and stupid way he went about things. Barring a major change of opinion, I'll be happy to see him gone.

But if you or anyone else thinks the Bulls are blameless in this mess, then it's you who have no desire to see accountability. Good grief, what a stupid rule Pax set forth. And then to bring a guy in known for wearing a headband and known for being a drama queen without really addressing it until after he signed is stupid. Surely they did some due diligence on him before offering him that contract. If they really thought it was such a complete non-issue, they didn't know Wallace and they are out of touch with the league in general. You may not _like _the attitude that prevails amongst some of those guys (I certainly don't), but it is what it is. If you work in that environment you better understand it and plan for it.

And yes, the rule in and of itself is stupid.

And it's damn stupid when you know the marketing arm of your organization is out selling Ben Wallace in a headband like white on rice. 

Ironically, some of those things appear to be the case for Wallace the player too. While he's a great defender in his own right, the style he likes to play (and again, "liking" is important when you've just given a guy the freedom of a $60M deal) is at odds with what the Bulls play.

So in my book, Pax especially (since according to the latest I've seen it's his rule) has quite a lot to be accountable for. Wallace may have gotten drunk and wrecked the car, but Pax handed him the keys.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

When Pax came in he didn't like the way E-Rob wore headbands and didn't like the "culture" of headband wearing. Skiles apparently didn't care for it either because I remember him calling Jamal Crawford a "sissy" for wearing a headband. I think that those opinions must somehow be intrinsically linked to the times when peach baskets were in style. 

The rule itself is stupid. I don't think orginizations should "bend over backwards" to be player friendly but I also don't think they should bend over backwards to be difficult on their players. Why have such a stupid rule? What purpose does it serve? And doesn't it stand to reason that your marquee free agent who is known for wearing headbands might not like it too much? Of course, we don't care what he likes, he will toe the line or sit because thats just the sort of mentality Pax/Skiles have. 

Ben Wallace's poor play isn't IMO a sign of his displeasure it is a sign that he is still gelling with this team and has only had a few good performances thus far as a result. He will get better if the trade some of you are unbelievably contemplating isn't made. The Bulls need to get off of their high horse on this one and stop acting like they are forming a military unit and start worrying about getting our basketball team playing up to par. Ben Wallace talking to other players about this isn't going to help the Bulls, it will likely hurt our chances at other free agents. This whole thing getting out in the press won't help the Bulls, instead it will have other players scratching their heads and saying, "Man the Bulls are whack...I don't want to play for them." Thats not good IMO.

ACE


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Hey Mike, my reply was mostly to some on this poster who completely deny player's accountability. And also about the way Wallace express his displeasure in open court.

Let me put it this way:

Do I think this headband rule is rather stupid for professional players? YES.

Do I agree with Paxon who impose this rule in the first place considering his explanation? Somewhat YES. 
(I personally couldn't stand the way Rose wear his band around his ear myself. I almost went into the TV screen and snatch it and throw it away myself. And I couldn’t stand ERob the person with or without a headband around his neck. Headband on Curry has never been a problem with me. So instead of picking on some of player with headband issues, Paxon imposed it on all players on the team. Probably good move at that time.)

Do I think it’s time to can the head band rule (even before Wallace incident)? YES. 
(Since all those players with headband issue have been gone. But the rule was still there.)

Do I think it’s better to let Wallace wear his attire as he sees it? YES. 
(But there should been a discussion about it since the rule was still in effect. Wallace apparently didn’t address this issue with either Paxon or Skile at all until last Saturday before he decided to show up Skile and Paxon. Wrong move by any measure in my book.)

Do I think that if Wallace went to Paxcon and ask to wear it, should have Paxon let him to wear it? SURE YES. Paxon’d better do it.
(And my guess is that Paxon would have found a way to let him wear sometime during the season. )

Do I think now that Wallace openly violate the rule, should Paxon let him wear it from now on RIGHT AWAY? Probaly NOT. 
(Based on Paxon and Skile we knew, Paxon won’t let a player dictate the overall team policy that way. He will more likely wait it awhile before he let Wallace wear whatever he wants to wear.)

So I all my blame go this way. At least for this instance.

Skile: NONE. It wasn’t his rule after all. He has to go with the rule. So I blame Skile ZERO on this incident.

Paxon: A little bit. For not discussing this matter with Wallace beforehand for one. And for not canning this stupid rule as soon as he threw out those mentioned players.

Wallace: A lot.
1.	You are paid $60M to play freaking basketball. So they won’t let you wear $5 headband and you pout. For $60M, you just shut up and play. Headband or no headband.
2.	For violating team rule instead of taking care of it in the closed door in appropriate way.
3.	For show up Skile and Paxon in the open court in a way “screw the rule, screw the role model for young players, screw the team morale”


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Huh?
> 
> I largely agree that Wallace must be held accountable for the sneaky and stupid way he went about things. Barring a major change of opinion, I'll be happy to see him gone.
> 
> ...




_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MikeDC again._


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> So in my book, Pax especially (since according to the latest I've seen it's his rule) has quite a lot to be accountable for. Wallace may have gotten drunk and wrecked the car, but Pax handed him the keys.


Unless you think Skiles is a liar, then I don't buy this one bit. Skiles said that Wallace was told of the rule months ago at his press conference and responded that it was "no problem". Paxson has said that he did not know this was an issue for Wallace prior to his mutiny at the Knicks game. Again, I presume he's not deliberately lying to the press. 

Wallace got drunk and wrecked the car, all right. But he stole the keys out of Paxson's jacket when he wasn't looking.

I also don't buy the theory that a GM who knows a player clashed twice with his coach last season over playing time and touches is to be expected to assume that when that player says a rule is "no problem" that the GM should change the rule anyway in an abundance of caution because its foreseeable that the player will recant that position and mutiny against the coach with absolutely no warning. 

This is on Big Benedict Wallace. You want to blame Paxson for spending all of his money on selfish, treasonous piece of crap? Fine. Thats fair game. GM's should be held accountable for poor free agency acquisitions. But lets not blame Paxson and Skiles for the FACT that Wallace is behaving like a selfish, treasonous piece of crap.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Unless you think Skiles is a liar, then I don't buy this one bit. Skiles said that Wallace was told of the rule months ago at his press conference and responded that it was "no problem". Paxson has said that he did not know this was an issue for Wallace prior to his mutiny at the Knicks game. Again, I presume he's not deliberately lying to the press.
> 
> Wallace got drunk and wrecked the car, all right. But he stole the keys out of Paxson's jacket when he wasn't looking.
> 
> ...


That distinction doesn't have much meaning to me. This is probably a tactless comparison, but I think the analogy is correct between this situation and the stereotype of the woman who is "asking for it" and then gets raped.

Is a woman to blame if she gets raped. Hell no. The rapist is. Rape is inexcusable and from the perspective of carrying out justice the prescription is to punish the rapist. From the perspective of the victim's personal benefit however, it's quite often the case that she would not have been raped had she exercised better judgement. That's not laying blame, it's just an unfortunate truth about the world.

And in the long-run, my concern isn't to punish Ben Wallace but for the Bulls to win as much as possible. From that perspective, sure, Wallace is completely to blame. But it's foolish to stop at that point and refuse to acknowledge lapses in judgement that put the Bulls in such a bad position.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> That distinction doesn't have much meaning to me. This is probably a tactless comparison, but I think the analogy is correct between this situation and the stereotype of the woman who is "asking for it" and then gets raped.
> 
> Is a woman to blame if she gets raped. Hell no. The rapist is. Rape is inexcusable and from the perspective of carrying out justice the prescription is to punish the rapist. From the perspective of the victim's personal benefit however, it's quite often the case that she would not have been raped had she exercised better judgement. That's not laying blame, it's just an unfortunate truth about the world.
> 
> And in the long-run, my concern isn't to punish Ben Wallace but for the Bulls to win as much as possible. From that perspective, sure, Wallace is completely to blame. But it's foolish to stop at that point and refuse to acknowledge lapses in judgement that put the Bulls in such a bad position.


If you want to start a "Looks Like Paxson Screwed The Pooch For Signing Ben Wallace Club" I'll be glad to sign up as its first member. I will not, however, blame Paxson or Skiles for Wallace's conduct. And that is precisely what the tone is around here. 

Forgive me if I mistakenly lumped you in with what I find to be an incredibly frustrating sentiment.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If you want to start a "Looks Like Paxson Screwed The Pooch For Signing Ben Wallace Club" I'll be glad to sign up as its first member. I will not, however, blame Paxson or Skiles for Wallace's conduct. And that is precisely what the tone is around here.
> 
> Forgive me if I mistakenly lumped you in with what I find to be an incredibly frustrating sentiment.


Paxson's been a great evaluator of "character" so far, no?


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

I'd shave Wallace's head while he was sleeping.
That'll teach him.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Back on topic: 

Ideal Solution: Demote Skiles to assistant coach, or some capacity where he's working with the rookies. Convince him that he's not lost a battle of wills, just that he's really really successful at getting rookies to play to their potential. Throw ideology in his face like: It's all about the team right. He has something to offer the rookies, just not as head coach. Hire Larry Brown. Exploit everyone's talent without being overbearing. Win championships. 

I join the fire Skiles club because it's more feasible.

Practical Solution: The irony is that I agree with Skiles here --- there is potential for something good out of every ugly internal conflict. (That's partly why I thought after that 4-12 team blowup in 2003 by Pax was very premature because it also came out of conflict)

Have everyone on the team roundtable with the management, preferably an all-honesty *****fest, where they hash out all internal issues, not just with headbands, but Ben Gordon's comments to the MSG camera (which had Big Ben not lashed out, would probably be front and center of this board), and other things we don't see.

In a regime where everything is all-or-nothing, seemingly has very little communication, I think extreme honesty can open the doors.


----------



## grace (Mar 22, 2005)

SianTao said:


> Fire Skiles. Unleash Sweetney. *Hire Larry Brown.* Collect title(s).


You have GOT to be kidding. As for firing Skiles as soon as the Pacers fire Carlisle I'm all for it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You hang up first... no you hang up first... no you hang up first.

(Is that a cell phone in the locker room? eeek!)


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry, fellas. When PaxSkiles signed up Wallace, they knew they were getting a player who was prone to acts of insubordination. That one's on them.



Wallace also knew what kind of organization he was joining. I find it hard to believe that people think the responsibility to change behavior lies more heavily on the employer instead of the employee.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If you want to start a "Looks Like Paxson Screwed The Pooch For Signing Ben Wallace Club" I'll be glad to sign up as its first member. I will not, however, blame Paxson or Skiles for Wallace's conduct. And that is precisely what the tone is around here.
> 
> Forgive me if I mistakenly lumped you in with what I find to be an incredibly frustrating sentiment.


I'd guess among most the sentiment is simply that Wallace's conduct is the sort of thing one might expect from a pampered multi-millionaire basketball player with a guaranteed deal. As pro basketball fans we don't like it and we hope against it, but we all know it's there.

The guy's a dog. And it's hard to blame a dog for being a dog. It's easy to blame a guy for pretending a dog is a man and dressing him up in stupid outfit. The focus is on him because we expect a man to make smart decisions.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The guy's a dog. And it's hard to blame a dog for being a dog.


One can use this statement to absolve anyone with a track record of poor behavior from responsibility and therefore your statement seems pretty useless unless you think that human beings have no free will.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I'd guess among most the sentiment is simply that Wallace's conduct is the sort of thing one might expect from a pampered multi-millionaire basketball player with a guaranteed deal. As pro basketball fans we don't like it and we hope against it, but we all know it's there.
> 
> The guy's a dog. And it's hard to blame a dog for being a dog. It's easy to blame a guy for pretending a dog is a man and dressing him up in stupid outfit. The focus is on him because we expect a man to make smart decisions.


Here, Here.

This is actually quite interesting, because the team in the 90's had similar conflict with the mgmt. But the coach sided with the players for the most part. Now, the coach and GM are joined at the hip.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> One can use this statement to absolve anyone with a track record of poor behavior from responsibility and therefore it seems pretty useless unless you think that human beings have no free will.


No, it's recognizing that you can't manage guys with multi-million dollar guarenteed contracts and unique talent the same way IBM can manage their call center employees.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> No, it's recognizing that you can't manage guys with multi-million dollar guarenteed contracts and unique talent the same way IBM can manage their call center employees.



ding ding ding we have a winner. Thank you for playing. reppped!


ACE


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Wallace also knew what kind of organization he was joining. I find it hard to believe that people think the responsibility to change behavior lies more heavily on the employer instead of the employee.


In this case, the employee is sufficiently big and important that it probably merited some mention and thought. Especially when the employer's rule was rather unusual.

I think there was a lot of overly wishful thinking going on from both ends. Wallace appears to actually have had some people point out the Bulls' up-tight motif. He clearly didn't think it through because he was so busy being pissed off at the Pistons.

And the Bulls were giddy they had a chance to land such a big name and didn't do their due diligence on Ben in general or some of the finer points of their expectations.

Quite probably, they both saw what they wanted to see. Wallace saw a "professional" tough guy defensive team and thought "I'll fit in here no problem". The Bulls looked at his resume and thought "this guy's a pro, he'll take us somewhere". Well, it turns out they had pretty different ideas of what professional means. It's sort of like once, I went out with this girl and she was like, "Hey, you want to go to church with me and my family before we go out". Well, sure, no problem. Once or twice. Doing it a couple times a week... that's just weird (to me at least).

I have this mental image of Skiles sort of tapping Ben on the shoulder and wispering into his ear, "oh, by the way, you can't wear your headband here" as they strode up on the podium to announce his signing. Ben smiles and says ok, because what the **** else is he going to do once he's walking up to the podium. In the meantime, he's trying to figure out how to break up with a girl who he just took to church.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> No, it's recognizing that you can't manage guys with multi-million dollar guarenteed contracts and unique talent the same way IBM can manage their call center employees.


No. You can excuse any act detrimental to the team with the statement, "its hard to blame a dog for being a dog." Any act. Therefore, because it is not bounded in any way, the statement really isn't helpful, IMO.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> No. You can excuse any act detrimental to the team with the statement, "its hard to blame a dog for being a dog." Any act. Therefore, because it is not bounded in any way, the statement really isn't helpful, IMO.


I see your point. Nevertheless, if Pax and Skiles thought that they didn't need to adjust anything at all in terms of rules and player treatment in bringing in a guy like Wallace, it's quite naive IMHO.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I have this mental image of Skiles sort of tapping Ben on the shoulder and wispering into his ear, "oh, by the way, you can't wear your headband here" as they strode up on the podium to announce his signing. Ben smiles and says ok, because what the **** else is he going to do once he's walking up to the podium. In the meantime, he's trying to figure out how to break up with a girl who he just took to church.




me too. and this is why i really honestly think skiles is telling HIS VERSION of the "truth".

i wonder if they showed ben wallace the ad campaign and got him to sign off on it.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I see your point. Nevertheless, if Pax and Skiles thought that they didn't need to adjust anything at all in terms of rules and player treatment in bringing in a guy like Wallace, it's quite naive IMHO.


Agreed. To me, however, the mistake made by Pax and Skiles was in the past and is now irreperable. They can't change now. They'd lose the respect of their players. So now the onus is on Big Ben to recognize the situation, stop being a baby, and play some damn ball.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> One can use this statement to absolve anyone with a track record of poor behavior from responsibility and therefore your statement seems pretty useless unless you think that human beings have no free will.


One need not deny free will to believe that people respond predictably to given sets of incentives.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> In this case, the employee is sufficiently big and important that it probably merited some mention and thought. Especially when the employer's rule was rather unusual.
> 
> I think there was a lot of overly wishful thinking going on from both ends. Wallace appears to actually have had some people point out the Bulls' up-tight motif. He clearly didn't think it through because he was so busy being pissed off at the Pistons.
> 
> ...


Seems believable. You'd really hope that both sides would have done their homework better.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> One need not deny free will to believe that people respond predictably to given sets of incentives.


Spoken like a true economist! (edit: I'm not being snide -- I agree)

But what are the incentives that would induce, in general, a person to become a dog?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> me too. and this is why i really honestly think skiles is telling HIS VERSION of the "truth".
> 
> i wonder if they showed ben wallace the ad campaign and got him to sign off on it.


Right. So lets just call him a liar based on your "mental image" of how a conversation transpired.

Even if Wallace said "no problem" under bizarre circumstances, he's had over 4 months to follow up on it without the need for mutiny - twice - on a nationally televised WGN Superstation basketball game against one of his team's - Team Captain Ben Wallace - biggest historic rivals. 

What's he going to do when we play Detroit? Make it a 6 on 4 game?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i posted this up in the game thread, but feel compelled to post it here too.


this is the picture (per several reports from ticket holders over at realgm) on the ticket for tonights game at the UC.

yes, really.




















_love that._


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I'm afraid Ben Wallace is going to be Charles Oakley all over again. Extremely solid when he was in a contending team, but a bit of a prima donna, and not able to handle the sacrifice that it takes to start over with a younger team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Spoken like a true economist!
> 
> But what are the incentives that would induce, in general, a person to become a dog?


The NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement. :yay:

Seriously, guaranteed contracts. You take away the incentive to continue to perform. Sure, Wallace still has incentives to perform, but the contract and extraordinary wealth introduce other things.

Add to it that Ball players are pretty much like many other performance artists. The talents required to excel require certain personality traits that often make it hard to deal with each other. Couple that with years of hangers on telling you you're a god, and you start to believe it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> i posted this up in the game thread, but feel compelled to post it here too.
> 
> 
> this is the picture (per several reports from ticket holders over at realgm) on the ticket for tonights game at the UC.
> ...


Haha. Those tickets are sitting on my desk right now, as I'm headed to the game tonight. Full headband, armband, and wristband glory.

This is so stupid.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Haha. Those tickets are sitting on my desk right now, as I'm headed to the game tonight. Full headband, armband, and wristband glory.
> 
> This is so stupid.


I'm wearing a headband to tonights game in protest.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm wearing a headband to tonights game in protest.



:rock:


this is all my fault anyway.....













:laugh:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm wearing a headband to tonights game in protest.


Ha! That's a great idea. Know anywhere in the Loop where I could pick one up before I head over?

You know what would be interesting to check tonight? Does the Fandemonium store inside the UC sell headbands/wristbands?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> i posted this up in the game thread, but feel compelled to post it here too.
> 
> 
> this is the picture (per several reports from ticket holders over at realgm) on the ticket for tonights game at the UC.
> ...


Not to fear Miz. I was in touch with the front office once again and it seems there is a replacement ticket being offered.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

:rofl: nice work


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ha! That's a great idea. Know anywhere in the Loop where I could pick one up before I head over?


Niketown?



> You know what would be interesting to check tonight? Does the Fandemonium store inside the UC sell headbands/wristbands?


I bet they do. That would be funny.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKing nailed it.

Press conference with Pax, Skiles, and Wallace all wearing headbands. No more ban.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> SausageKing nailed it.
> 
> Press conference with Pax, Skiles, and Wallace all wearing headbands. No more ban.


or the entire team should come out with headbands tonight.

not bloody likely, but it would diffuse the whole thing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*scoop jackson* on "headbandgate" (as it's now being called!) 


_Has it really come to this?

A team that is expected to be one of the elite teams in its conference and possibly battle for a trip to the NBA Finals opens the season at 4-9, and when it finally wins on the road after losing six in a row, we're sitting here talking about headbands.

Headbands?

So when Chicago Bulls coach Scott Skiles decided in the one game the Bulls had a chance to win -- one in which his $60 million man had a chance to re-establish himself as the player the team spent $60 million to sign -- that he'd sit Ben Wallace down twice to prove a point or to exercise his power (which he has the right to do), it basically gives public notice to where the team's priorities are and what's more important in the team's direction.

Get a team its defensive swagger back or bench a star player for wearing a headband. Find the defensive chemistry that wins games and stops you from losing large leads in the second half of games or bench a star player for wearing a headband. Develop a consistent offensive rotation so that each player knows what his exact role is from game to game or bench a star player for wearing a headband.

The choice is theirs.

And the Chicago Bulls choose to be more concerned about professional images and subliminal messages sent.

----

But why Wallace pictured in the team's media guide wearing a headband? Why has the organization created marketing material that allowed the players to wear headbands?

Why is there this standard double?

But I'll digress.

True, BW might have crossed the line or been insubordinate Saturday night, but let's be very real here: This has nothing to do with rules. *Headbandgate* (as it is now being called) has everything to do with an exercise of power in the middle of a storm that no one inside the Bulls organization has an answer for.

----

But since it is out -- since Wallace said after shootaround Tuesday according to reports, "If you know the rules and break them, you expect to be punished. I can't try to put myself above the team or anybody else and wear a headband like I did. I'm man enough to take the punishment. But I'm not sorry." -- let's put this entire Gloria Monty-inspired soap opera into perspective.

The Bulls and Wallace have issues so much bigger than this to deal with that it's insane this is being given this much attention, an A-List topic on "Quite Frankly." The grievance that the players' union already has with the League over its issue with Jermaine O'Neal wearing a wristband too high up on his arm (he was fined $5,000), doesn't deserve attention either, but is another mini-Rushmore issue.

*See, what Wallace should do, since he's on this defiant trip, is tell Paxson, "OK, I'll abide by the headband rule if you stop letting (or giving away, as the Bulls did during the home opener to welcome him) fans wear those back-to-slavery Buckwheat wigs during games."*

Think that'll happen?

Never. Because, like honestly dealing with why the team is losing, the Bulls really don't want to deal with real issues of professional image and subliminal messages being sent._



http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/wallace/061128


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> *scoop jackson* on "headbandgate" (as it's now being called!)
> 
> 
> _Has it really come to this?
> ...


_

you left out that part. i used to like reading scoop jackson articles, before he arrived on espn. because what he said was honest, a little too honest. but now, more often than he used to, he makes every issue into a *black* issue, as though its the blacks against the world. too black too wrong? c'mon. thats probably the most ridiculous thing he could have added to a perfectly fine own opinionated article. the nba is probably the least racist league in the whole of sports, hell, you could say the least racist league in the whole world of sports, and any business alike._


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i left it out on purpose since it's just the most ridiculous thing. guess i'm too white. or too girly.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> i left it out on purpose since it's just the most ridiculous thing. guess i'm too white. or too girly.


thats scoop for you..


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I'd sit Wallace down and apologize sincerely for not addressing this issue earlier. Then I would explain to him that if the Bulls changed the rules now in response to his protest I'd risk losing the respect of the rest of the team, especially the younger players. Then I would promise him that next season, headbands would be fine. I'd ask him if he was ok with this. 

If he said no and continued to play half-arsed, I'd trade him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How about this...

Let him violate the no cornrows rule and don't say anything about it.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

kulaz3000 said:


> you left out that part. i used to like reading scoop jackson articles, before he arrived on espn. because what he said was honest, a little too honest. but now, more often than he used to, he makes every issue into a *black* issue, as though its the blacks against the world. too black too wrong? c'mon. thats probably the most ridiculous thing he could have added to a perfectly fine own opinionated article. the nba is probably the least racist league in the whole of sports, hell, you could say the least racist league in the whole world of sports, and any business alike.



What are you talking about? The NBA is by far the most racist league in sports. David Stern is the modern equivalent of a slave owner, using black men to make hundreds of millions for himself and billions for his corporation. His dress code is completely racists and that cannot be argued, unless you're white and ignorant.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

leave the personal attacks out of it, folks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Blazed said:


> What are you talking about? The NBA is by far the most racist league in sports. David Stern is the modern equivalent of a slave owner, using black men to make hundreds of millions for himself and billions for his corporation. His dress code is completely racists and that cannot be argued, unless you're white and ignorant.


Well said.

Note: I deleted a handful of worthless posts.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Nevermind... it was fixed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Blazed said:


> Nevermind... it was fixed.


I'm not so sure that dress codes, in general, are racist, but this particular one does seem to me to be targetted at the non-white players.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Just because you deleted certain comments doesn't hide the fact he obviously couldn't handle someone going against his opinions and his totally absurd assumptions about my race through my comments. Sure, i didn't have to retaliate in the way i did with sarcasim, but we're grown men here. Can't we defend ourselves? 

He had his opinions, and so did i. He went out it his way, and i went it about it my way. But i certainly wouldn't have retaliated if not for his assumptions and racial banter.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Just because you deleted certain comments doesn't hide the fact he obviously couldn't handle someone going against his opinions and his totally absurd assumptions about my race through my comments. Sure, i didn't have to retaliate in the way i did with sarcasim, but we're grown men here. Can't we defend ourselves?
> 
> He had his opinions, and so did i. He went out it his way, and i went it about it my way. But i certainly wouldn't have retaliated if not for his assumptions and racial banter.


You're a great poster. I think you need to read his original post carefully. It doesn't parse as an insult in any way, shape, or form, nor was it directed at you.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You're a great poster. I think you need to read his original post carefully. It doesn't parse as an insult in any way, shape, or form, nor was it directed at you.


...
Edit: re-read the thread.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> It is completely off topic.


I think he was defending scoop's position, which others have opined is silly.

How is that off topic?


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I'm not so sure that dress codes, in general, are racist, but this particular one does seem to me to be targetted at the non-white players.


So are you saying that Skiles and Paxson put in the no headband rule to go against non-white players? Im not saying that this whole headband rule isn't ridiculous, i've said it over and over again that its an utterly stupid rule. But regardless, why can't owners, general managers and coaches just want some consistency and tideness in the way players present themselves to the public. In a comment on comcast, Skiles said the rules go along the lines of .."tucking their shirts in, no heabands, being on time.." 

I just don't know whats so hard about those simple rules, that someone has to defy the rules in public. When its all said and done, they are part of their own organisation, but they are also part of a bigger business. 

I just simply disgreed with Blazes opinions that the whole league is a racist league, and that Stern is racist. If you consider the nba racist, you could say that any business from the local corner store to the biggest profit making companies are all racist.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I think he was defending scoop's position, which others have opined is silly.
> 
> How is that off topic?


I respect your reasoning, as i respect everyone elses on this board whether i agree with them or not that never bothers me. So i won't go into any further, but Blaze can't make such absurd remarkes, and conclude with comments such as race and ignorance to people who disagree with his opinions. 

But that is it, nothing more from me on this. I'll just conclude that i disagree that this league is racist, that David Stern is racist. Sure, there are racist elements in this league, but there is racist elements in anything in this world. Racism is in all our subconscience, but to make such a narrow minded opinion on the league and an individual person is uncalled for.

[Case closed]


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> So are you saying that Skiles and Paxson put in the no headband rule to go against non-white players? Im not saying that this whole headband rule isn't ridiculous, i've said it over and over again that its an utterly stupid rule. But regardless, why can't owners, general managers and coaches just want some consistency and tideness in the way players present themselves to the public. In a comment on comcast, Skiles said the rules go along the lines of .."tucking their shirts in, no heabands, being on time.."
> 
> I just don't know whats so hard about those simple rules, that someone has to defy the rules in public. When its all said and done, they are part of their own organisation, but they are also part of a bigger business.
> 
> I just simply disgreed with Blazes opinions that the whole league is a racist league, and that Stern is racist. If you consider the nba racist, you could say that any business from the local corner store to the biggest profit making companies are all racist.


Paxson inherited a team that had a black coach and no white players to speak of (bagaric and hoiberg). EDIT: this context and the no cornrows rule further make his point valid.

Ticket prices at the stadium have historically been set high enough that it's hard for black people to afford them. This has been pointed out by one of our stellar black posters.

The bit about being white and ignorant is meaningful in the sense that some of us may not realize these things unless they are pointed out. If you read his post as "unless one is white and ignorant" then you get his meaning.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Wrong. It is the most significant negative incident that has happend to the Chicago Bulls (other than J-Will's career ending injury) in the post-Jordan Era.
> 
> It is stupid, I agree. But its stupidity doesn't render it insignificant. It is of enormous significance.


It's funny how these things work out. Wallace's signing was viewed as a huge positive and is coming to be seen as a disaster. J-Will's wreck was seen as a disaster but in retrospect it quite possibley could have been a huge benefit.

At least, that's the way I look at it. Even before the wreck, he wasn't exactly showing great progress, and without the sudden injury we very well could have bypassed Kirk for a guy like Jarvis Hayes or Pietrus.


----------

