# How weak can this draft be?



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

In my opinion it won't be.

Tyrus Thomas _is now saying_ he won't enter, but who's to say who else will or won't. I looked at 4 mock drafts, the number next to the mock source is the number of guys that will be available in the 2006 draft based on age (however one of the europeon guys may have a buyout issue).

NBADraft.Net- 15 
Draftexpress.com- 16
probasketball.com- 12
hoopsvibe- 16 
average - 5

Maybe all the stars will end up to be of those let's say 5 players, but not likely. From 1990-2000 (not including 01'-05' because players still haven't developed) there has been at least 3 allstars out of every draft, on average 4.9 allstars a year.

There's no Oden, but there has to be a couple a stars available in 06'.
Rudy Gay
Lamarcus Aldridge
Andrea Bargnani
Adam Morrison
Kyle Lowry
Tyrus Thomas
Ronnie Brewer
JJ Redick
Rodney Carney
Josh McRoberts
Shawne Williams
Sheldon Williams
Aaron Gray
Jason Smith
Tiago Splitter
Richard Roby
Al Horford
Cedric Simmons
Darius Washington
Brandon Rush
Joakim Noah
Julian Wright
Sasha Kaun
CJ Giles
Rajon Rondo
Tyler Hansbrough
Corey Brewer
Paul Davis
Brandon Roy
Nick Fazekas
Roy Hibbert
Ronnie Foye
Maurice Ager
Hilton Armstrong
Daniel Gibson
Patrick O'Bryant
Jeff Green

You may look at this list and say there is no way x or y will be an all-star, but I mainly didn't want to miss anybody. Considering where our pick will end up, this is my radar right now.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

If Aldridge is available with the Knicks' pick, I wouldn't mind trying to trade our pick up and get Carney.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I don't think this draft will be too bad. No sure fire guys, but as the season goes on, a lot of players seem to solidifying themselves as legit prospects. 

I think LaMarcus, Sheldon, Paul Davis and Hilton Armstrong will be pretty good right off the bat.

I really can't comment on Bargnani and Splitter, since I've never seen any of them play, but I think there's more substance to their hype than past european bigmen like Darko and Skita, since they're both apparently playing and producing pretty well against top notch European competition.

To me, all the 2/3 guys who should be in the draft look like they have a good chance of panning out as well. (Talking about Brewer/Carney/Williams).

And Rudy Gay looks like he has a game that was tailor made for the pros. 

No one especially stands out, but I think there's a decent amount of quality.

I think (hope) it'll turnout like the 99 draft, when we got Elton Brand. People said the exact same thing about that draft as well, and look how it turned out.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Random comment: everyone loves the 03 draft but look how awful it was after pick 8. AWFUL.

http://basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2003.html

You tell me how many of those guys have contributed at all.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Random comment: everyone loves the 03 draft but look how awful it was after pick 8. AWFUL.
> 
> http://basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2003.html
> 
> You tell me how many of those guys have contributed at all.


Awful? Josh Howard, Kendrick Perkins, Sweets, Delfino, Diaw, West, Ridnour, Pietrus, Hayes. Maybe Howard is the best player, but all of these guys can play. Wouldn't call it awful really.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Awful? Josh Howard, Kendrick Perkins, Sweets, Delfino, Diaw, West, Ridnour, Pietrus, Hayes. Maybe Howard is the best player, but all of these guys can play. Wouldn't call it awful really.


Luke Walton, Kyle Korver, Matt Bonner, and Steve Blake in the second round as well.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

lougehrig said:


> Awful? Josh Howard, Kendrick Perkins, Sweets, Delfino, Diaw, West, Ridnour, Pietrus, Hayes. Maybe Howard is the best player, but all of these guys can play. Wouldn't call it awful really.


But none of those guys are going to make it better than any other draft. Sweets is a bust in my mind, Perkins... meh, West is only improving now, Delfino... meh, Pietrus... meh, Hayes... meh...


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

the 03' draft had 4 franchise players, which compared to other years was really great. And they are all in the first few picks, so I understand the claim that there was a huge drop off, but there were some nice players in that draft like Pietrus, Diaw, West, Perkins they will have have good careers but not on the level of james, anthony, bosh, wade.

I would guess that this draft has a VERY little chance of having 3 franchise players (Bargnani, Morrison, and Gay). It has a average chance at having 2 franchise players (Gay and Morrison) and a pretty good chance at having 1 franchise player (I personally think Morrison but I get plenty of crap about saying that). I don't think you can really compare 03' with 06' but there might be some real steals in the 2nd RD and late 1st RD just like in 03'.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

The 2003 draft was amazing.... the first and second rounds were incredibly deep compared to any other draft in the past 10 years


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It's been a while since a Dukie has come out after just one year of school (I can't actually remember the last one... Corey Maggette?). So I'd expect McRoberts to really stay put and show his ability next year as the team will be exclusively his.

Hansbrough, on the other hand, can very well come out and be one of the top 3 big men in the draft right away. He's having a very decent season at UNC, a program that DOES have freshmen leave on occassion (see last year's #1 overall pick).

Other guys in the draft that might be stars: Gay, Morrison, Carney, Redick, Brewer, Hilton Armstrong (defensively making a real statement on the best team in the nation).


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Random comment: everyone loves the 03 draft but look how awful it was after pick 8. AWFUL.
> 
> http://basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2003.html
> 
> You tell me how many of those guys have contributed at all.


Yeah but for us to be "drooling over being 'real contenders'" next year, we don't need it to be a DEEP draft. Remember we should be "drooling" over our two LOTTERY picks. For this to be a good draft for the Bulls, we need it to have the potential to produce high impact players at the top. In THAT aspect, it forecasts as one of the worst drafts in recent memory, AND even furthermore, when you look at the BULLS needs, CENTER (no, not power forward, CENTER) and SG, the draft really looks bad, as Morrison and Gay, the two best players, play a position where we are actually two deep.

I really don't care how good the draft is from picks 15-30 if the Bulls pick 6th and 14th or how good it is from 12-30 if the Bulls pick 4th and 11th. I'm not looking to give this draft an "overall beauty/figure-skating score," I merely am critiquing in from the vantage point of John Paxson, who put his eggs in this offseason's basket. 

People keep saying "oh well there may not be any players with superstar potential, or maybe just 1 or 2 (both SFs if you ask me), BUT the draft is DEEP with GOOD players." Well that's great lol. If you're picking in the 20s. That's what the dynasty Bulls used to want. That's what teams like San Antonio and Detroit want. They want a draft that is "good from pick 8-30." 2003 is EXACTLY the kind of draft we need for the position we put ourselves in. In that draft you now have the following players in the top 8 you named:

C/PF Bosh
F Anthony
F James
G Wade
G Hinrich

Looks to me like you could pretty much get anything you needed if you were picking where we will likely be picking in that draft. You could get players at all different positions with the very realistic potential to be big producers early on in his career. Because honestly, even for the level of apathy I've often displayed for Hinrich, if there is one thing you can say about the guy, it is that he was pretty good pretty early on in his career. But then, you knew that he, Wade, Anthony, James and Bosh would be that way. I WOULD LOVE IT if I knew that about someone in this draft, but I've watched Aldridge, Davis, Williams etc. and there isn't one of them that compares to Bosh, and Bosh isn't even a cornerstone. *We don't need faces in the crowd in this draft. We have enough of those already. We weren't sold two more "faces in the crowd" by Paxson as he bumbled through last summer.*


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

What I like about drafts is that there are players who are cant miss future superstars and then there are Gems. Lets go with the 2003 draft, yes there where cant miss sure fire superstars in Lebron and Melo but Wade was not considered a franchise player and look at him now. Bosh was called a project and Darko well hes Darko, but the point is that you never know whats going to pop out of the draft. Amare was taken 9th in his draft, its going to take alot of luck but the main point here is that we dont know for sure that there isnt a Wade, a Kobe , Arenas, Red, Amare, T-Mac, VC etc. We will not know how good this draft will be untill a year from now when we have seen them play atleast half an NBA season. 

Overall I like where the Bulls are right now, they can have the #1 pick and a good mid round pick as well.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Random comment: everyone loves the 03 draft but look how awful it was after pick 8. AWFUL.
> 
> http://basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2003.html
> 
> You tell me how many of those guys have contributed at all.


Boris Diaw is having a really great season. You could argue that Josh Howard is as good as anyone on our team. David West is a 17 and 8 player on a team that's better than us this year. Barbosa was the frontrunner for 6th man of the year before he went down. And the 6th man of the year last season was arguably our best player last season.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> What I like about drafts is that there are players who are cant miss future superstars and then there are Gems. Lets go with the 2003 draft, yes there where cant miss sure fire superstars in Lebron and Melo but Wade was not considered a franchise player and look at him now. Bosh was called a project and Darko well hes Darko, but the point is that you never know whats going to pop out of the draft. Amare was taken 9th in his draft, its going to take alot of luck but the main point here is that we dont know for sure that there isnt a Wade, a Kobe , Arenas, Red, Amare, T-Mac, VC etc. We will not know how good this draft will be untill a year from now when we have seen them play atleast half an NBA season.
> 
> Overall I like where the Bulls are right now, they can have the #1 pick and a good mid round pick as well.


Actually, people were split on Wade. Half of the people were violently screaming that he'd be unreal and the other half were going on about his height. I was part of the OTHER HALF, so I know. There were plenty of people saying that Wade was easily the second best player in this draft. It probably all got lost in the Darko hype, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever witnessed in sports.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Actually, people were split on Wade. Half of the people were violently screaming that he'd be unreal and the other half were going on about his height. I was part of the OTHER HALF, so I know. There were plenty of people saying that Wade was easily the second best player in this draft. It probably all got lost in the Darko hype, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever witnessed in sports.


 Thank goodness that the Pistons have won an NBA title because if they where horrible right now I cant imagine how anyone in Detroit could have lived with knowing that the Pistons skiped over Melo, Wade and Bosh for that bum. Kinda reminds me of the Sam Bowie over Jordan and Olajuwan draft.


----------



## djsmokyc (Jan 23, 2004)

Showtyme said:


> It's been a while since a Dukie has come out after just one year of school (I can't actually remember the last one... Corey Maggette?).


Umm, Luol Deng

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/luol_deng/bio.html


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Thank goodness that the Pistons have won an NBA title because if they where horrible right now I cant imagine how anyone in Detroit could have lived with knowing that the Pistons skiped over Melo, Wade and Bosh for that bum. Kinda reminds me of the Sam Bowie over Jordan and Olajuwan draft.


 :banana: Man I got so sick of hearing about it. It's like an annual competition to play the game "well the guy you know about isn't as good as the guy I know about. And look at everyone talking about that guy, but I'm the only one talking about this guy." Very nauseating stuff. I love when people forget Ralph Sampson. He was a guy who could have been king inside and had to show his "Versatility." Anytime I hear people pumping up the outside aspects of a post players game, a red light goes off. Inside players belong... inside. So I'm glad Darko can jack the three, I just don't see what is so Jordanesque about it lol.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Boris Diaw is having a really great season. You could argue that Josh Howard is as good as anyone on our team. David West is a 17 and 8 player on a team that's better than us this year. Barbosa was the frontrunner for 6th man of the year before he went down. And the 6th man of the year last season was arguably our best player last season.


If Ben is who you're referring to in that last sentence... he was drafted in '04.

David West was nothing until this year.

Prior to this year those guys were terrible, sans maybe Howard. And those are still only a couple guys. Every draft's going to have a couple good guys.

I didn't look at it too far in detail, I just skimmed over it and thought, "who?"

Even so, it's still a weak draft after the first 8.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

nanokooshball said:


> The 2003 draft was amazing.... the first and second rounds were incredibly deep compared to any other draft in the past 10 years


* 1996 Draft* ten years ago
Kobe
Nash
Ben Wallace
Iverson
JO
Ray Allen
Marbury
Stoyakovich
Big Z
Walker
Abdur_rahim
Camby
Dampier

not to say 03 won't be better.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> If Ben is who you're referring to in that last sentence... he was drafted in '04.
> 
> David West was nothing until this year.
> 
> ...


But what's the point? We need this draft to be a great draft IN the first 8, and not just overall but qualitatively so we can get a difference maker. We need this draft to be exactly what 2003 was in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. If you told me "ok this draft is going to have 5 difference makers in the first 8 picks, but after that it's gonna be weak" I'd be like "SOLD! SOLD! SOLD!" But this draft is gonna be more like 2000. Think of the paralells. We may be able to get a player like Primoz Brezec in the end of the first round. Oh wait, WE WONT BE PICKING IN THE 15-30 range so it doesn't matter!!!


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> But what's the point? We need this draft to be a great draft IN the first 8, and not just overall but qualitatively so we can get a difference maker. We need this draft to be exactly what 2003 was in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. If you told me "ok this draft is going to have 5 difference makers in the first 8 picks, but after that it's gonna be weak" I'd be like "SOLD! SOLD! SOLD!" But this draft is gonna be more like 2000. Think of the paralells. We may be able to get a player like Primoz Brezec in the end of the first round. Oh wait, WE WONT BE PICKING IN THE 15-30 range so it doesn't matter!!!


There was no point, other than it was a random observation by me that got blown up.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

96' and 03' drafts were pretty sick if you'd ask me...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Yeah but for us to be "drooling over being 'real contenders'" next year, we don't need it to be a DEEP draft. Remember we should be "drooling" over our two LOTTERY picks.


Who do you keep quoting with this stuff?



> For this to be a good draft for the Bulls, we need it to have the potential to produce high impact players at the top. In THAT aspect, it forecasts as one of the worst drafts in recent memory, AND even furthermore, when you look at the BULLS needs, CENTER (no, not power forward, CENTER) and SG, the draft really looks bad, as Morrison and Gay, the two best players, play a position where we are actually two deep.


For this, and next year, to be good drafts for the Bulls, they need to lead to an improvement over Eddy Curry. These Knicks picks can only be judged in relationship to Curry, since he is what was given up to obtain them. 



> I really don't care how good the draft is from picks 15-30 if the Bulls pick 6th and 14th or how good it is from 12-30 if the Bulls pick 4th and 11th. I'm not looking to give this draft an "overall beauty/figure-skating score," I merely am critiquing in from the vantage point of John Paxson, who put his eggs in this offseason's basket.


I don't care either. But, by way of correction, Paxson has one potential egg in next season's basket - the pick swap.



> People keep saying "oh well there may not be any players with superstar potential, or maybe just 1 or 2 (both SFs if you ask me), BUT the draft is DEEP with GOOD players." Well that's great lol. If you're picking in the 20s. That's what the dynasty Bulls used to want. That's what teams like San Antonio and Detroit want. They want a draft that is "good from pick 8-30." 2003 is EXACTLY the kind of draft we need for the position we put ourselves in. In that draft you now have the following players in the top 8 you named:
> 
> C/PF Bosh
> F Anthony
> ...


Absolutely right. 



> Looks to me like you could pretty much get anything you needed if you were picking where we will likely be picking in that draft. You could get players at all different positions with the very realistic potential to be big producers early on in his career. Because honestly, even for the level of apathy I've often displayed for Hinrich, if there is one thing you can say about the guy, it is that he was pretty good pretty early on in his career. But then, you knew that he, Wade, Anthony, James and Bosh would be that way. I WOULD LOVE IT if I knew that about someone in this draft, but I've watched Aldridge, Davis, Williams etc. and there isn't one of them that compares to Bosh, and Bosh isn't even a cornerstone.


Bosh isn't the measuring stick for these draft picks. Curry is.



> *We don't need faces in the crowd in this draft. We have enough of those already. We weren't sold two more "faces in the crowd" by Paxson as he bumbled through last summer.*


Actually, I don't recall being "sold" anything by Paxson. Publicly, he was angry that he even made the trade in the first place.

If you can find where Paxson was calling this a good strategic trade for the Bulls when it went down, I'd like to see that quote. All I remember was his anger.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> If Ben is who you're referring to in that last sentence... he was drafted in '04.
> 
> David West was nothing until this year.
> 
> ...


David West wasn't in the NBA until this year, Delonte West is the player that they were referring to. I think your way off, this was a very good draft and if you are going "who" when seeing names like Diaw and West then your probably one of those guys who can't see beyond Wade or Lebron.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> David West wasn't in the NBA until this year, Delonte West is the player that they were referring to. I think your way off, this was a very good draft and if you are going "who" when seeing names like Diaw and West then your probably one of those guys who can't see beyond Wade or Lebron.


I can see beyond Wade or LeBron. I like guys like Diaw, etc. As I said before, I originally skimmed it over too quickly, and missed a lot of names.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> Luke Walton, Kyle Korver, Matt Bonner, and Steve Blake in the second round as well.


Not to mention, Zaza Pachulia, Maurice Williams, James Jones, and Willie Green (I guess he counts).


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Who do you keep quoting with this stuff?


Oh don't worry Ron, most of the people that were busting out quotes like that were long gone when the Bulls went appreciably under .500. But there is this guy on the other board who still "drools" daily over mediocre draft prospects. I think he still posts drool posts every day, so maybe I can dig up some instant classics if you want to laugh as someone "drooling" over a basketball player.



> For this, and next year, to be good drafts for the Bulls, they need to lead to an improvement over Eddy Curry. These Knicks picks can only be judged in relationship to Curry, since he is what was given up to obtain them.


I'd love to believe that we'll get a player as good as Curry with the Knicks pick or the potential pickswap, but I don't see it happening. Curry was a weird player. He can do something that very few can do in today's NBA. The ability to back just about anybody who guards you down, turn around, and shoot 53% at close range, when everybody knows your team is feeding you, and extra defense is coming your way, is truly a lost art in today's game. Especially when you're 7'0" 285 with touch. On the other hand, I won't deny Curry's shortcomings. Terrible passer, below average defender (though I believe he improved), awful rebounder. And yet, on yet another hand, he was really perfect for this team and vice-versa, because we had the right mix of players to wipe out his weaknesses. That's why I always laugh at people who assume that I thought he'd do well in New York. They don't have that mix, and so Curry's weaknesses shine bright. Too bad for the Bricks. 

The other thing I'd add is that we already HAD Curry, who was in his fifth year. So we need said draftee to be as good as Curry NOW, not 3-4 years from now. I realize maybe a 1-1.5 year grace period is reasonable with any player, but it's not the player we're judging here. It's the "right way." 



> I don't care either. But, by way of correction, Paxson has one potential egg in next season's basket -the pick swap.


I'm unenthralled. Yes, it could by some microscopic possibility, turn into Greg Oden. And if it does, I'll be the first to say that Paxson took a big big giant gamble and came up aces, and he'll get credit forever. Other than that I just don't see what this does to make us real contenders any time soon (and you can still find the "I can't wait till this summer when Pax turns us into REAL contenders" quote in about 20% of posts after we win 1 game!). 

By eggs in basket I meant the Knicks pick AND cap space. Now if Pax delays spending that money until 2007, I'll be very happy with him. But I don't think he has the patience or balls frankly. 



> Bosh isn't the measuring stick for these draft picks. Curry is.


I think Bosh absolutely is the measuring stick when someone starts saying that this draft will be looked back upon as one of the strongest in recent history. In terms of comparisons with the 2003 draft, Bosh is relevant. However, I agree. Outside of the context in which my post that you just quoted was written, Curry is the measuring stick. 



> Actually, I don't recall being "sold" anything by Paxson. Publicly, he was angry that he even made the trade in the first place.
> 
> If you can find where Paxson was calling this a good strategic trade for the Bulls when it went down, I'd like to see that quote. All I remember was his anger.


Well first I'll say this. Pax and Jerry didn't have to be angry about anything. Had they been proactive like the Knicks and taken the attitude of "how CAN we get this done" instead of "how can we avoid Eddy Curry remaining a Bull" then I think Eddy Curry would still be here. The Knicks got it done (although I don't know what THEY were thinking) and Eddy Curry isn't dead yet. 

But you're right. The sell job has come more from Paxson's fans than he himself. I'm honestly not a big Paxson quote guy. I prefer not to read a word he says or listen to him. And I'm far more irked by people who insist he's never done a thing wrong or that his way is the "right way" than I am with he himself.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Oh don't worry Ron, most of the people that were busting out quotes like that were long gone when the Bulls went appreciably under .500. But there is this guy on the other board who still "drools" daily over mediocre draft prospects. I think he still posts drool posts every day, so maybe I can dig up some instant classics if you want to laugh as someone "drooling" over a basketball player.


Oh, so its some person on another message board. Okay. Probably detracts a little bit from its relevence or impact here. 



> I'd love to believe that we'll get a player as good as Curry with the Knicks pick or the potential pickswap, but I don't see it happening.


Thats fine. I'm simply pointing out that the absence of a "Wade, LeBron or Bosh" doesn't make the deal a mistake. That isn't the type of player given up. 



> Curry was a weird player. He can do something that very few can do in today's NBA. The ability to back just about anybody who guards you down, turn around, and shoot 53% at close range, when everybody knows your team is feeding you, and extra defense is coming your way, is truly a lost art in today's game. Especially when you're 7'0" 285 with touch. On the other hand, I won't deny Curry's shortcomings. Terrible passer, below average defender (though I believe he improved), awful rebounder. And yet, on yet another hand, he was really perfect for this team and vice-versa, because we had the right mix of players to wipe out his weaknesses. That's why I always laugh at people who assume that I thought he'd do well in New York. They don't have that mix, and so Curry's weaknesses shine bright. Too bad for the Bricks.


Those are clearly his strengths and weaknesses, I agree. And the Knicks most definitely suck, I agree with that as well.



> The other thing I'd add is that we already HAD Curry, who was in his fifth year. So we need said draftee to be as good as Curry NOW, not 3-4 years from now. I realize maybe a 1-1.5 year grace period is reasonable with any player, but it's not the player we're judging here. It's the "right way."


Agree and disagree. What matters is the long term success of the team. But I understand your point. 



> I'm unenthralled. Yes, it could by some microscopic possibility, turn into Greg Oden.


I didn't say anything about Greg Oden and Greg Oden is not the standard. 



> And if it does, I'll be the first to say that Paxson took a big big giant gamble and came up aces, and he'll get credit forever.


He'll deserve no credit, and get none from me, because he didn't want to do the deal in the first place. If Paxson gets more than "Curry value" out of the trade it will largely be by accident if you take Paxson at his word, which I do. 

I'm happy with the trade so far. But I don't give Paxson any credit for it whatsoever.



> Other than that I just don't see what this does to make us real contenders any time soon (and you can still find the "I can't wait till this summer when Pax turns us into REAL contenders" quote in about 20% of posts after we win 1 game!).


I'll take your word for it. I just don't personally recall many, if any, posters predicting the Bulls to contend for the Championship in 2006-2007. 



> By eggs in basket I meant the Knicks pick AND cap space.


Those are definitely MOST of the eggs.



> Now if Pax delays spending that money until 2007, I'll be very happy with him.


I'd consider that an unmitigated disaster and would consider calling for his job.



> But I don't think he has the patience or balls frankly.


And I think he's too smart. 



> I think Bosh absolutely is the measuring stick when someone starts saying that this draft will be looked back upon as one of the strongest in recent history. In terms of comparisons with the 2003 draft, Bosh is relevant. However, I agree. Outside of the context in which my post that you just quoted was written, Curry is the measuring stick.


If that is what you meant, then I agree. 



> Well first I'll say this. Pax and Jerry didn't have to be angry about anything. Had they been proactive like the Knicks and taken the attitude of "how CAN we get this done" instead of "how can we avoid Eddy Curry remaining a Bull" then I think Eddy Curry would still be here. The Knicks got it done (although I don't know what THEY were thinking) and Eddy Curry isn't dead yet.


Curry is alive. 



> But you're right. The sell job has come more from Paxson's fans than he himself. *I'm honestly not a big Paxson quote guy.*


Then perhaps you should not attribute things to him that he didn't do or say. 



> I prefer not to read a word he says or listen to him.


Again, then you might not want to attribute things to him since you avoid his actual statements. 



> And I'm far more irked by people who insist he's never done a thing wrong or that his way is the "right way" than I am with he himself.


I don't think anyone considers him infallible. But as for fans considering his way being the right way, that is simply an opinion. Much like your opinion that he has done things incorrectly.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

> # Member of the Dinka tribe that produces many of the tallest people in the world


lol, on Nba.com for luol's profile..... you think we should scout and train his whole tribe?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Oh, so its some person on another message board. Okay. Probably detracts a little bit from its relevence or impact here.


Oh make no mistake, it was here. It just dwindled a lot in both places as the losses piled up 



> And the Knicks most definitely suck, I agree with that as well.


I guess that does it for most people. Not for me. I want to be better than Detroit more than I do New York.



> I didn't say anything about Greg Oden and Greg Oden is not the standard.
> 
> He'll deserve no credit, and get none from me, because he didn't want to do the deal in the first place. If Paxson gets more than "Curry value" out of the trade it will largely be by accident if you take Paxson at his word, which I do.
> 
> I'm happy with the trade so far. But I don't give Paxson any credit for it whatsoever.


Admirable stance. This is far better than those who want to paint Paxson as this innocent GM forced into a terrible situation, but then can't wait to also give him credit for the picks he's already made this summer and the players he's already signed, oh AND the Championships they've already won. 



> And I think he's too smart.


This free agent class sucks. If he doesn't get Ben, I hope he holds on. 



> Then perhaps you should not attribute things to him that he didn't do or say.


I thought I admitted mistake on this issue? Did I not say that I made a mistake in attributing the sell job done by some of his fans to him? 



> Again, then you might not want to attribute things to him since you avoid his actual statements.


I'll take actions and results over words and effort. 



> I don't think anyone considers him infallible. But as for fans considering his way being the right way, that is simply an opinion. Much like your opinion that he has done things incorrectly.


Ah yes. His fans typically will generously admit that he makes mistakes, he just never seems to have made a mistake in any particular issue being discussed. Don't believe me? Get an alias and start a thread about what you believe his biggest mistake was. His fans that post there will admit that he's made mistakes, but will say "this just doesn't happen to be one of them." And we're talking a large majority here. AND this is with the team losing. If the team is winning or on a winning streak, Pax usually hits pretty high on the Messiah-o-meter.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I thought we've pretty much established the fact that trying to delay the capspace for 07 is futile.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Well we kinda did. I mean, I guess if the right guy is there, I have no problem with it. I just don't see it. And I don't want another summer of 2000. Yes, I know Krause was idiotic, BUT those kind of summers happen to decent GMs in this league a lot more often than you think. How much less capspace are we talking if we wait until summer 2007?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Before I actually do the monotonous task, who would you prefer Paxson went after?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

step said:


> Before I actually do the monotonous task, who would you prefer Paxson went after?


Are we really gonna go through this whole "oh you want him!? He'd never come here" or "you want him, you don't know that we can get him."

I already did a full thread on 2007. Maybe I'll look for it. I just like that whole list of players. There are some players I might even wait until 2008 for. 

But I believe the inevitable conclusion of that thread was that we'd have to pull a trade anyway actually. So perhaps I'll amend to stating that anyone Paxson signs should be desireable enough if Wade wants to come here etc. But for example just off the top of my head (sorry getting organized for a real life commitment) Jamaal Magloire looks better to me than any big man in this class save Wallace, who I hope is not 100% committed to Detroit.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Oh make no mistake, it was here. It just dwindled a lot in both places as the losses piled up


What do the losses piling up have to do with "drooling" over draft picks? It woulds seem to me that the more losses, the more to drool about. 



> I guess that does it for most people. Not for me. I want to be better than Detroit more than I do New York.


Not me, man. 6 games under .500 rocks. 

People take independent satisfaction in the failure of the Knicks and what it means to the status of their draft picks. That does not equate with being satisfied with the state of the Bulls' record. 



> Admirable stance. This is far better than those who want to paint Paxson as this innocent GM forced into a terrible situation, but then can't wait to also give him credit for the picks he's already made this summer and the players he's already signed, oh AND the Championships they've already won.


I just don't really know that you are talking about actual events and posts. Championships? 

I do see a lot of people writing about who he might draft though. Seems understandable. I like to think about who he might draft too. 



> This free agent class sucks. If he doesn't get Ben, I hope he holds on.


Not me. I hope he spends every damn penny.



> I thought I admitted mistake on this issue? Did I not say that I made a mistake in attributing the sell job done by some of his fans to him?


Yes, it was a mistake. 



> I'll take actions and results over words and effort.


But see, thats kind of my point. There weren't "words". 



> Ah yes. His fans typically will generously admit that he makes mistakes, he just never seems to have made a mistake in any particular issue being discussed. Don't believe me? *Get an alias and start a thread about what you believe his biggest mistake was.* His fans that post there will admit that he's made mistakes, but will say "this just doesn't happen to be one of them." And we're talking a large majority here. AND this is with the team losing. If the team is winning or on a winning streak, Pax usually hits pretty high on the Messiah-o-meter.


No thanks. 

I just don't think you are making a realistic representation of the board or how Bulls fans view John Paxson. I love him. I think so far he's done a great job as GM. I'm behind him 100%. But he certainly has made some mistakes, and averted others more through circumstance than merit-based choice. 

He has erred. But he's good. I think most people would say Joe Dumars is a darn good GM, but he basically passed over Anthony, Wade and/or Bosh for what now is Kelvin Cato and a protected first round draft pick.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Are we really gonna go through this whole "oh you want him!? He'd never come here" or "you want him, you don't know that we can get him."


Pretty much. We have to be realistic atleast, otherwise it's all just a foolish pipe dream. Also a fact alot of people tend to ignore is that most of the famed 07 free agency class are players that are restricted or they have player options for that year for an astonishing amount of money. We'd have to make an exceptional case to make one not to pick up their options, but how would we do that by not spending a cent to improve the team?



> I'll amend to stating that anyone Paxson signs should be desireable enough if Wade wants to come here etc.


If we go that route, we'd be basically restarting the building process again. Eventhough we'd have the likes of Wade, we would have holes elsewhere. And again the point of being realistic is raised, we would have to contend with pretty much 28 other teams to obtain Wade. What happens when we acquire pieces more suited to Miami than us, and Wade signs a max contract extension or is traded to another team. What then?



> But I believe the inevitable conclusion of that thread was that we'd have to pull a trade anyway


This I do agree on, but we won't be in a position to do so if we don't utilize what we have.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Well we kinda did. I mean, I guess if the right guy is there, I have no problem with it. I just don't see it. And I don't want another summer of 2000. Yes, I know Krause was idiotic, BUT those kind of summers happen to decent GMs in this league a lot more often than you think. How much less capspace are we talking if we wait until summer 2007?


I'm gonna give this another shot. I had typed a whole, rather long response and the damned browser stuck or it just wouldn't submit the post and I lost the damn thing!

Here goes....

In the summer of '07 I've got to believe that the Bulls are going to want to extend Hinrich. If they don't do it this summer (to be effective starting at the end of next year) then they'll get a deal done in the summer of '07. Let's just say Kirky commands around $8mil starting. Kirk'll make $3 mil in '06-'07, so his net hit on the cap in the summer of '07 would be $5 mil. Factor in whatever inceases in salary we have for our existing singed players (Chandler, Deng, Gordon, Duhon(?)) between the summer of '06 and the summer of '07 and that's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 mil. So we're at $8 so far. Now factor in our two draft picks this summer who'll be on the second year of their rookie deals. Let's say a #4 pick (Knicks) and a #10 pick (Bulls - assuming we don't make the playoffs as the #9 team in the east). Figure $3.5 mil for the #4 pick and maybe $2.5 for the #10 pick. That's $6 mil more to bring the total to $14 mil.

Then you've got to look at Noce needing to be resigned. Is Songalia gonna exercise his player option this summer or become a FA in '07? Sweetney is up in '07 but he can be let go and his numbers don't figure into the '07 cap number anyways. Resign Noce and Songalia for decent deals and you're probably looking at a net increase between the two of around $4 mil or so ($2mil each). 

Short of Pax making some deals to either get rid of Chandler, not sign Kirk, noce or songaila, I don't see how this team is going to have much, if any real cap space in the summer of 2007. If we're talking about a potential payroll increase in 2007 of $18 mil or so (and that's with just keeping what we've got), that can't leave too much to play with. It's pretty much now or never and after that I think it'll be all about getting as close to the lux tax threshhold without going over unless this team is a serious contender and in that case, I think Uncle Jerry will ante up (within what he determines as reasonable) to foot the bill for a contender. We're still going to have to up Gordon and Deng in a couple of years and then also throw in three first rounders in the next two years. Eventually, something is going to have to give cause Uncle Jerry ain't gonna pay for all those mouths to feed.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Using the usually trustworthy jtkramer site -

07 offseason:
Tyson Chandler - 10,223,102
Ben Gordon - 4,881,669
Chris Duhon - 3,247,284
Luol Deng - 3,320,339
Draft pick 06- #2 3,607,000
06- #10 1,754,600
07- #8 1,935,900
Gauranteed - : 28,969,894

Now to figure out how much Sweetney, Hinrich and others count towards the cap.
Salary cap FAQ 


> A restricted free agent counts against his team's salary cap by the greatest of:
> 
> * His free agent amount (as defined in the table above)
> 
> * The amount of his qualifying offer


Considering I'm not able to calculate the average salary, and that in 2005/6 they used $5M, I think its safe to say that both will be under the average salary. That means that 300% of their previous salary counts towards the cap.
Hinrich - 3,192,628 x3 = 9,577,884
Sweetney - 2,696,956 x3 = 8,090,868

Nocioni and Songalia are only at 120% of their previous salary, though I believe Nocioni would be an Early Bird and be at 130%, but either way I'll use 120% for now.
Nocioni - 3,060,000 x 1.2 = 3,672,000
Songalia - 2,376,000 x 1.2 = 2,851,200

28,969,894
+9,577,884
+8,090,868
+3,672,000
+2,851,200
= 53,161,846
Given that next years cap is predicted to be at $51M, even if it goes up the year after, we have pretty much nothing.
Eventhough Hinrich and Sweetney wouldn't get deals resembling that starting salary, I probably wouldn't be wrong to say Nocioni and Songalia would probably command almost twice as much as what counts.
So extend Hinrich (probably see a starting salary around $7.5M), renounce Sweetney, sign Nocioni ($5M, he'd probably command more) and what counts towards Songalia, we'd expect to be around the $45M mark. Leaves you around the MLE mark of $5M to spend.

So yes, its pretty much use it or lose it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What do the losses piling up have to do with "drooling" over draft picks? It woulds seem to me that the more losses, the more to drool about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a great post, Ron Cey.

Let me also add something...If I'm not mistaken, Paxson took the reigns of this franchise less than 3 years ago. That's a pretty short timeframe for any GM to turn things around 180 degrees. I think when a new GM takes over with a mentality to "change the losing culture" (which was obviously needed at the time), you have to give him some time (and assets) to reverse the trend. To me, a reasonable time frame to turn things around is 3-4 years....which means this summer is critically important for Paxson in terms of fulfilling his plan. If he fails to turn these assets into a productive team (i.e. strong playoff team for 06-07, contender or near-contender by 07-08) than that means his plan probably hasn't panned out...which also means it might be time for Uncle Jerry to find a new captain for the ship. This has consistently been my view. Don't give Pax a free pass, but don't assume his plan will utterly fail before it's come to fruition. I think that's reasonable.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

all I gotta say about this:

two years ago, Paul Shirley was on our roster.

I think that says a lot about where Paxson has taken the franchise. Just the fact that we're actually DISSAPOINTED when we're what, 6 games under .500. Take any post-Jordan, pre-last year and 6 games under is more than what anyone would have expected.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I think when a new GM takes over with a mentality to "change the losing culture" (which was obviously needed at the time), you have to give him some time (and assets) to reverse the trend.


Paxson guaranteed playoffs. He didn't start out by "changing the losing culture." He started by guaranteeing playoffs. He felt that the team he inherited was a playoff team, not a loser, like the one we have now. 




> To me, a reasonable time frame to turn things around is 3-4 years....which means this summer is critically important for Paxson in terms of fulfilling his plan.


His new plan, right? His plan before the heart issue was to resign Curry, build upon our #3 team in the east and move on and up from there.





> Don't give Pax a free pass, but don't assume his plan will utterly fail before it's come to fruition. I think that's reasonable.


Seems we're on plan number 3. He felt he inherited a playoff team. 1 month later he blew it up. He wanted to resign the twin towers and build upon the 47 win season. Now that team is blown up. "We lost our size." Now we're talking about Nazr.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

...it's gotten so bad, my 2-year-old now prefers to watch Barney over the Bulls.

The shame.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson guaranteed playoffs. He didn't start out by "changing the losing culture." He started by guaranteeing playoffs. He felt that the team he inherited was a playoff team, not a loser, like the one we have now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great post. I guess I'll just continue to do what I've done. Wait for negative results (they're coming) and then comment from there. It's funny that last year when we were winning, it was because Paxson's way was the right way, and now we're losing and it's not due to Paxson's way, but circumstances. He was forced to not take a proactive stance on the Curry issue and whatnot. I guess I need to have direct quotes to assert that Paxson is selling anything, so I'm not really allowed to say that his sales pitch has always been winning now and the playoffs. Now it appears to be capspace and the draft, AND 3 years is way too early to evaluate a GM. Crap, half the people on this site will be dead by the time Pax fans say it's "okay" to evaluate him. What's funny is, a month ago, before Chandler decided to show up, half the replies would not have been put forth. That was when some of the people claiming that this was easily a 45-50 win playoff team wouldn't even show their faces. They were "silent observers." 

I'm here now and I'll be here if Paxson puts together a 60 win team, just like yourself and many other great posters here. I WANT Pax to be good, because I like the Bulls. I just don't see it. 

I'm still waiting for what 1 free agent from this summer combined with what 2 draftees is going to make us a contender. Our best player will still be Kirk Hinrich, which basically means you aren't a contender


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

This may be the first instance in the history of organized basketball that trading away a 14/6/0/1 player has ruined an organization, and amazingly it is ruined months before the top-5 draft pick the guy was traded for is even drafted.

LOL.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Really it seems there is two big camps on this board. One contingent really is frustrated with our team's losing record and the dropoff from last year. Others, are cautiously optimistic that a good, young core combined with a lot of cash to throw around and two picks in the lottery (right now) is a good thing especially considering we are only 2 games out of a playoff spot. If the Bulls miss the playoffs, what is the possibility that the Knicks pick ends up being 1 and the Bulls pick ends up being 2 or 3. Can you imagine having 2 of the top 3 picks in any draft. I can't see anything wrong with heading into next year with...

PG-Hinrich
SG-Gordon
SF-Deng
PF-Gooden
C-Chandler

Duhon(PG)
Morrison(SG/SF)
Nocioni(SF/PF)
Songalia(PF)
Battie(C)

Foye(PG/SG)
Adrian Griffin(SF)
Sweetney(PF)
Othella(C)

Guess what, if we don't start off next season on a tear we have the flexibility to package Foye, Gordon, Deng, and Sweets plus our 1st rounder for Bosh, Pierce, etc. Count me in the cautiosly optimistic and really getting tired of so much negativity on this board.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> *Really it seems there is two big camps on this board. One contingent really is frustrated with our team's losing record and the dropoff from last year*. Others, are cautiously optimistic that a good, young core combined with a lot of cash to throw around and two picks in the lottery (right now) is a good thing especially considering we are only 2 games out of a playoff spot. If the Bulls miss the playoffs, what is the possibility that the Knicks pick ends up being 1 and the Bulls pick ends up being 2 or 3. Can you imagine having 2 of the top 3 picks in any draft. I can't see anything wrong with heading into next year with...
> 
> PG-Hinrich
> SG-Gordon
> ...


I have to disagree with this, I think both "contingents" on the board are frustrated with our losing record and being 5 or 6 games behind last year's win pace. I know I certainly am, it has been a pain in the rear watching this team lose 4 games in OT and 5 games in which we led in the final minute. I don't think there is anyone here who wouldn't be happier if the Bulls were 29-23 instead of 23-29 (but I could be wrong about that).

But you are correct that there is a contingent that is cautiously optimistic and a contingent that is convinced that the Bulls are doomed to eternal mediocrity- but unfortunately, honesty compels me to say that the "doomed to eternal mediocrity" camp is almost 100% made up of people who think a 14/6/0/1 center can't possibly be replaced.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> Really it seems there is two big camps on this board. One contingent really is frustrated with our team's losing record and the dropoff from last year. Others, are cautiously optimistic that a good, young core combined with a lot of cash to throw around and two picks in the lottery (right now) is a good thing especially considering we are only 2 games out of a playoff spot. If the Bulls miss the playoffs, what is the possibility that the Knicks pick ends up being 1 and the Bulls pick ends up being 2 or 3. Can you imagine having 2 of the top 3 picks in any draft. I can't see anything wrong with heading into next year with...
> 
> PG-Hinrich
> SG-Gordon
> ...


What if some people have been tired of blind optimism and utter denial for a long time? Forget that for a second.

Cash and picks do not exist in a vacuum. They are coupled with the free agent market and draft. The free agent market consists of Ben Wallace and nobody. The draft looks like the weakest in years. Now people can say "well you're just a Paxson hating Scrooge, you don't know what the draft is going to turn out like." I've tried to be optimistic. I like that Armstrong kid. But honestly, when ESPN says "the guys at the top of our board are only there by default" what am I supposed to think when my team needs a good topheavy draft? 

And this is not about absolute assertions. I am not saying "I know for a fact that this will turn bad on Paxson." I don't know. To me it's about presumptions. I know Paxson proponents didn't hesitate to beat their chests last year based on the presumption of "well look at what happened when things were done the 'right way.'" When things aren't going so well, and this team isn't a winner, I believe other presumptions are allowed, until Paxson overturns them by making moves that send us in an opposite direction. That's all. I've never said that Paxson has no chance to redeem himself. I'm just grossly unhappy with this team and I think it's a boring product that was built based on a set of outdated values by a GM who is too quick to write players off if they're the "wrong way." 

Sorry but I won't be naming my Son after a player who isn't averaging double digits in ANY statistical category this year. I'm looking for 47 wins out of this team and just not seeing it. If that makes me a Grinch, I'm sorry man. 

But one thing I think everyone has to remember is that while there are two camps, different members of different camps are saying different things. So implicit potshots aren't always directed at you because you're a Paxson fan or something like that. Many people who ripped the non-Pax camp all summer claimed that this was still a 47 win team EVEN AFTER the Curry trade, because Pax got rid of the REAL problem. There are also people in the pro-Pax camp who were arguing vehemently BEFORE Curry's heart episode, that 82games.com proved beyond any doubt that we'd be BETTER if we gave Eddy Curry away for NOTHING. So different people were saying different things. To me there isn't a party line or something.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

bullsville said:


> ...it's gotten so bad, my 2-year-old now prefers to watch Barney over the Bulls.
> 
> The shame.



My Wife (who is a Bulls fan also) has threatened to have me charged with "insanity" if I keep having her and the baby watch Bulls games instead of "Real Teams".

Ahhhh, the fabric of Bulls society as we know it is at risk, Mr. Paxson.................J/K LOL


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> My Wife (who is a Bulls fan also) has threatened to have me charged with "insanity" if I keep having her and the baby watch Bulls games instead of "Real Teams".
> 
> Ahhhh, the fabric of Bulls society as we know it is at risk, Mr. Paxson.................J/K LOL


LOL, I feel your pain- the other night, the wife actually had the nerve to say to me "it won't kill you to miss one game, will it?"

Dammit Pax!!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Many people on this board are not all that frustrated since they didn't like either Krause, Rose, Crawford or Curry and felt the team needed blowin' up and are willing to give Paxson years and years just to get back to the point where we were actually at last season. Ya see, last season we had a flawed team with no upside from the point we were at, even though we were the 3rd best team in the eastern conference and were led by a very young core.

Of course, most Bulls fans are not message board die-hard Paxsonites. 

Judging by the empty seats at the UC, the even more church like atmosphere, the dwindling media coverage, which will be even more evident once baseball starts, and the general lack of interest in the team (try talking Bulls at an average Chicago bar) and you'll see that whatever momentum the team built last season is quickly dying.

Its fine though. "The element" is cleansed. The Bulls are a loser now and Paxson has been a loser career wise as a GM, but its really “the right way.” We’re on a glorious road. Tiago Splitter is going to be the ****. Check our Nazr's and Przybilla's assist ratio. Awesome passers. Al Harrington is a player that can really make a difference to a once losing team. Check out the Hawks! 

We just need a few more years of rebuilding. Maybe another blowup or two. But that’s all. Eventually, we’ll get back to at least where we were at last season. At least.


EDIT: The Cap Space and draft picks are certainly valuable, not saying otherwise. Its just we're back to lotto/Cap Space mode... which the Bulls are certainly familiar with.

EDIT 2: I'm just tired of the years and years of losing. Last season it seemed like we were out of the woods. Nope.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Great post. I guess I'll just continue to do what I've done. Wait for negative results (they're coming) and then comment from there.


That's the spirit!



> It's funny that last year when we were winning, it was because Paxson's way was the right way, and now we're losing and it's not due to Paxson's way, but circumstances.


Probably because he blew up one of the worst teams in the league and turned it into a 47 win team in one year. 



> He was forced to not take a proactive stance on the Curry issue and whatnot.


No, he refused to cave on the DNA issue. Proactive has nothing to do with it. The team demanded a DNA test, end of story. The merit of this demand actually seems to be a very reasonable criticism of Paxson if you are a person that considers Curry important.



> I guess I need to have direct quotes to assert that Paxson is selling anything, *so I'm not really allowed to say that his sales pitch has always been winning now and the playoffs.*


Yes, you should have evidence of a statement if you are going to allege a statement. 

And this is not what you claimed his "sales pitch" to be earlier in this thread. This is just moving the ball. You claimed he was selling something about the caliber of draftee available. This never happened. He's never even openly said that he thought the Curry trade would end up being good for the Bulls in the long run. 

That is a fan sentiment that is often unfairly attributed to Paxson. He's wrong not to feel that way, but his overvalueing of Curry is what it is.

For the sales pitch you assert now, the papers are rich with quotes. He has stated that the playoffs are the goal all season. Even recently. 

But he has never said that "winning now" was the "goal". Paxson, since taking over, has steadfastly talked about being patient and building a long term winner. And regardless, the Curry trade, which is obviously your sticking point, has nothing to do with this since Paxson openly didn't want to make the trade in the first place.



> Now it appears to be capspace and the draft, AND 3 years is way too early to evaluate a GM.


Under the circumstances and based on what we've seen so far and what we know lies ahead in the immediate future, I'd say that 3 years is not just too early, but WAY too early to judge this GM's tenure.



> Crap, half the people on this site will be dead by the time Pax fans say it's "okay" to evaluate him.


. . . .



> What's funny is, a month ago, before Chandler decided to show up, half the replies would not have been put forth. That was when some of the people claiming that this was easily a 45-50 win playoff team wouldn't even show their faces. They were "silent observers."


I still don't really think you're talking about more than one or maybe two posters on this entire board. But I might not have paid as close attention as you did. 



> I'm here now and I'll be here if Paxson puts together a 60 win team, just like yourself and many other great posters here. I WANT Pax to be good, because I like the Bulls. I just don't see it.
> 
> *I'm still waiting for what 1 free agent from this summer combined with what 2 draftees is going to make us a contender.* Our best player will still be Kirk Hinrich, which basically means you aren't a contender


Then wait. We all have to wait for that. Though a talent consolidation trade is inevitable and will also have to be factored into making this team a "contender".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Though a talent consolidation trade is inevitable and will also have to be factored into making this team a "contender".


I would not be so sure that its inevitable.

We could just let them play out their rookie deals and turn them into Polish Pistols, Sweetneys, draft picks and financial flexibility.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would not be so sure that its inevitable.
> 
> We could just let them play out their rookie deals and turn them into Polish Pistols, Sweetneys, draft picks and financial flexibility.


I don't see how it can happen that way. The team will already have other contracts putting us over the cap. Trading them away for scrap won't make sense.

Plus, Paxson only did that with one player based on merit, and that was Crawford. Hardly a sufficient sample size to fear that this is going to become the normal practice. 

If this team resorts to perpetual rebuilding mode for no good reason, I'll be right there with ya, K4E.

But I consider a talent consolidation trade to be about a 99.9% possibility by summer of 2007. Might even happen this summer.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> EDIT: The Cap Space and draft picks are certainly valuable, not saying otherwise. Its just we're back to lotto/Cap Space mode... which the Bulls are certainly familiar with.
> 
> EDIT 2: I'm just tired of the years and years of losing. Last season it seemed like we were out of the woods. Nope.



I agree with you whole heartedly....EXCEPT - This time around, we have so much more talent on the roster as we go into FA with Crap space and the draft should net us 2 very good players as well. Last time, we were having trouble fielding a WNBA team, nevermind a NBA team.

I'm tired of losing as well......still, (though it's now ancient history I enjoyed it) If someone offered me 6 championships in eight year, then sucking hard for a decade, I'd take those championships again.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson guaranteed playoffs. He didn't start out by "changing the losing culture." He started by guaranteeing playoffs. He felt that the team he inherited was a playoff team, not a loser, like the one we have now.


We've been over this one before. I'm not sure if a "playoff guarentee" was the right thing to do at the time (we only won 30 games for goodness sake, armed only with a MLE at the time); I mean, I was HOPING for playoffs the following season and thought it was possible, but that was contigent upon our beloved "three C's" developing into well-rounded players. Heh, that sure as hell didn't happen. I think it was so blatantly obvious after getting throttled by non-playoff Washington in our season opener that our Rose/Crawford/Chandler/Curry core wasn't gonna do jacksquat. Maybe Paxson should've had the foresight to break up that squad over the summer...but 90% of that team Krause built. 






> His new plan, right? His plan before the heart issue was to resign Curry, build upon our #3 team in the east and move on and up from there.


No, it's the same plan alright. But a plan can only be so structured in this business. Too much unpredictability (i.e. CURRY). Even the world champs are in a state of change most off-seasons. Paxson's plan, as it has been from day 1, is to assemble a group of team-first players who compliment each other, play with constant effort and hustle, bring a solid work ethic, not to mention talent and the mindset to maximize that talent. It sounds generic, but looking around the league there are alot of teams that surprisingly DON'T follow this mold...many of which are in the NBA gutter. Pax has followed this mold pretty consistently in his tenure.




> Seems we're on plan number 3. He felt he inherited a playoff team. 1 month later he blew it up. He wanted to resign the twin towers and build upon the 47 win season. Now that team is blown up. "We lost our size." Now we're talking about Nazr.


I wouldn't call replacing Curry/AD with Sweetney/Songaila "blowing a team up". Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Noch, Deng, Chandler, and Othella are all regulars who were here last year. And you can't deny how friggin close we are to a winning record (numerous blown leads in the closing minute). It's the type of trend that 1 or 2 good players can reverse.

There's no guarentee that bringing back the same squad from last year would repeat 47 wins either. Several teams with cap space and draft picks had the means to improve alot more than us. This summer we'll have the same advantage. 

As I said earlier, this is Paxson's do-or-die off-season. Based on what he did the last time we had multiple draft picks, I think he'll make the most of it.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

> Paxson's plan, as it has been from day 1, is to assemble a group of team-first players who compliment each other, play with constant effort and hustle, bring a solid work ethic, *not to mention talent* and the mindset to maximize that talent. It sounds generic, but looking around the league there are alot of teams that surprisingly DON'T follow this mold...many of which are in the NBA gutter. Pax has followed this mold pretty consistently in his tenure.


This sums up my problem with Paxson. And although I could give two Fs to sit there and read the man's quotes or listen to him talk (I've already seen the movie Hoosiers), I do believe that this quote can be attributed to his managerial style as well. It's not "get players with talent, and then hope that your organization is strong enough and the goals are well enough defined that they will play like team players and bring a strong work ethic" (ever notice Jalen Rose wasn't a jumpshot hoisting malcontent during the run the Pacers had in Indiana). It's "get players who 'try hard' and wear short shorts, and then hope that maybe somehow they also have some talent too." The problem with Paxson's philosophies (and I'll just go ahead and attribute them to him even though I don't follow the man with a microphone) is that the type of attributes he looks for first in a player... DONT IMPRESS PLAYOFF TEAMS. His short-shorted wonders showed up v. Washington like "look at us, we TRY HARD, we have max effort, and we always say the right thing in the papers," and the Wizards were like "uh, yeah, we try hard too. AND we have talent." Although I still haven't figured out how Michael Ruffin got so good the night before our series. 

The problem with Paxson and a lot of his fans, in my OPINION (and that's all it is), is that being talented is not high enough on his list. Now, before I field replies about that bum Jamal Crawford, I realize that there is another extreme that Krause fell victim too of letting talent blind you. The place where today's successful GMs live is in the middle. They try to find players with the best combo of both. They don't write players off as easily as Paxson does IMO, or as easily as Krause did if they couldn't jump out of the gym. 








> I wouldn't call replacing Curry/AD with Sweetney/Songaila "blowing a team up". Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Noch, Deng, Chandler, and Othella are all regulars who were here last year. And you can't deny how friggin close we are to a winning record (numerous blown leads in the closing minute). It's the type of trend that 1 or 2 good players can reverse.
> 
> There's no guarentee that bringing back the same squad from last year would repeat 47 wins either. Several teams with cap space and draft picks had the means to improve alot more than us. This summer we'll have the same advantage.


You don't think we'd be 31-21 if we still had Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis? I seem to recall us not being so desperate for much of anything from Tyson Chandler last year. Whatever he and Ben gave us beyond typical bench-player contributions was a bonus.

But that said, while it may not have been blowing up the team, it was fixing something that wasn't broken. Whatever tests the Bulls demanded, I put that on them. When Eddy drops dead I'll be the first to say "my bad." But I don't think that that is gonna happen. 

You have to remember that traditionally the teams with less size and less frontcourt production fade the hardest as the season closes. Having good reliable size, just like in football, allows you to stay fresher. The Bulls could slow things down a lot last year and they were the team running with fresh legs around this time. I'm predicting we see a reverse in that trend this year. 

As I said earlier, this is Paxson's do-or-die off-season. Based on what he did the last time we had multiple draft picks, I think he'll make the most of it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> This sums up my problem with Paxson. And although I could give two Fs to sit there and read the man's quotes or listen to him talk (I've already seen the movie Hoosiers), I do believe that this quote can be attributed to his managerial style as well. It's not "get players with talent, and then hope that your organization is strong enough and the goals are well enough defined that they will play like team players and bring a strong work ethic" (ever notice Jalen Rose wasn't a jumpshot hoisting malcontent during the run the Pacers had in Indiana). *It's "get players who 'try hard' and wear short shorts, and then hope that maybe somehow they also have some talent too."* The problem with Paxson's philosophies (and I'll just go ahead and attribute them to him even though I don't follow the man with a microphone) is that the type of attributes he looks for first in a player... DONT IMPRESS PLAYOFF TEAMS. *His short-shorted wonders showed up v. Washington like "look at us, we TRY HARD, we have max effort, and we always say the right thing in the papers," * and the Wizards were like "uh, yeah, we try hard too. AND we have talent." Although I still haven't figured out how Michael Ruffin got so good the night before our series.
> 
> *The problem with Paxson and a lot of his fans, in my OPINION (and that's all it is), is that being talented is not high enough on his list.* Now, before I field replies about that bum Jamal Crawford, I realize that there is another extreme that Krause fell victim too of letting talent blind you. The place where today's successful GMs live is in the middle. They try to find players with the best combo of both. *They don't write players off as easily as Paxson does IMO*, or as easily as Krause did if they couldn't jump out of the gym.


Thats harsh. Besides Curry, who are you talking about? Tim Thomas? E-Rob? Fizer? 

Who are these talented guys that Paxson shuns because their shorts aren't short enough?

By his reactions and words, Paxson didn't want to trade Curry. So that has no bearing on any of this as it relates to a supposed indifference to talent. 

That leaves us with Tim Thomas, Eddie Robinson, Marcus Fizer, Jalen Rose, and Jamal Crawford. Which of these guys are the ones that you are so upset Paxson didn't show interest in or committment to? 

Or is it the draft picks? Who are the guys that Paxson didn't take, that he should have taken, instead of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Duhon? What long-shorted players did Paxson turn his nose up at based on a preference for the less talented alternative?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

step said:


> = 53,161,846
> Given that next years cap is predicted to be at $51M, even if it goes up the year after, we have pretty much nothing.
> Eventhough Hinrich and Sweetney wouldn't get deals resembling that starting salary, I probably wouldn't be wrong to say Nocioni and Songalia would probably command almost twice as much as what counts.
> So extend Hinrich (probably see a starting salary around $7.5M), renounce Sweetney, sign Nocioni ($5M, he'd probably command more) and what counts towards Songalia, we'd expect to be around the $45M mark. Leaves you around the MLE mark of $5M to spend.
> ...


In that scenario, we let Nocioni walk. Then maybe pull off a Colangelo/Nash, if Bosh or Pierce are available. A Duhon size contract could take care of that.

53 M
-1.5 Hinrich (resigned)
-8 Sweets (cut)
-4 Nocioni
-4,3 Songaila or Duhon
Bosh money


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> This sums up my problem with Paxson. And although I could give two Fs to sit there and read the man's quotes or listen to him talk (I've already seen the movie Hoosiers), I do believe that this quote can be attributed to his managerial style as well. It's not "get players with talent, and then hope that your organization is strong enough and the goals are well enough defined that they will play like team players and bring a strong work ethic" (ever notice Jalen Rose wasn't a jumpshot hoisting malcontent during the run the Pacers had in Indiana). It's "get players who 'try hard' and wear short shorts, and then hope that maybe somehow they also have some talent too." The problem with Paxson's philosophies (and I'll just go ahead and attribute them to him even though I don't follow the man with a microphone) is that the type of attributes he looks for first in a player... DONT IMPRESS PLAYOFF TEAMS. His short-shorted wonders showed up v. Washington like "look at us, we TRY HARD, we have max effort, and we always say the right thing in the papers," and the Wizards were like "uh, yeah, we try hard too. AND we have talent." Although I still haven't figured out how Michael Ruffin got so good the night before our series.
> 
> The problem with Paxson and a lot of his fans, in my OPINION (and that's all it is), is that being talented is not high enough on his list. Now, before I field replies about that bum Jamal Crawford, I realize that there is another extreme that Krause fell victim too of letting talent blind you. The place where today's successful GMs live is in the middle. They try to find players with the best combo of both. They don't write players off as easily as Paxson does IMO, or as easily as Krause did if they couldn't jump out of the gym.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]



> You don't think we'd be 31-21 if we still had Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis?


Nope. I dont. Had EC stayed here one of two things would have happened. 1. He would not have played. John would still be concerned about his heart and demand a DNA test or 2....he would miss games due to injuries the way he has at Ny. Didnt he miss like 8 games? So where do we pick up the extra wins at? We may have won 4 or five games, but then thats speculation. We may have lost more games as well. Hard to say. 



> The problem with Paxson and a lot of his fans, in my OPINION (and that's all it is), is that being talented is not high enough on his list.


Huh? Gordon and Deng and Hinrich do not have talent? Nocioni is not a good player? I think he has had a couple of good drafts since he has been gm. If talent was not high on his list then he would field a complete "D" league team. Those guys play hard. Some play the "right" way. 

I disagree about this being a do or die off season for John. I thnk JR will give him more time. But thats me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> I agree with you whole heartedly....EXCEPT - This time around, we have so much more talent on the roster as we go into FA with Crap space and the draft should net us 2 very good players as well. Last time, we were having trouble fielding a WNBA team, nevermind a NBA team.
> 
> I'm tired of losing as well......still, (though it's now ancient history I enjoyed it) If someone offered me 6 championships in eight year, then sucking hard for a decade, I'd take those championships again.


I'd also gladly take one of the younger teams in the league that has the 3rd best record in their conference. 

Beats being a boring, losing team, IMO.

But, many (on this board, far fewer in the real world where the Bulls appear to be reaching afterthought status once again) appear happy with our current situation. Guess I'll have to be the minority in the "demanding a winner with upside" camp.

I can’t wait for baseball to start.





"The Right Way" is a loser to this point. There is no disputing this. You can come up with excuses for the "no excuses" regime, but its a loser. I hope, as a Bulls fan, that this situation changes. I just don't see anything short of a draft miracle or rapid internal development saving the day at this point. 

Of course, I was not very high on last year's team to start the season either. But, what I've been told over and over again the last few weeks, is that last year's team really wasn't very good... that expecting that squad to repeat their 47 win performance would be unrealistic, so perhaps many of you are right and Paxson's Year 2 team was not very good. Sure seemed like a good team last year.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I understand the fear of blind optimism. I for one was split on the Curry trade. He was our best post scorer and a legitimate center. However, his defense and passing was horrendous. But I refuse to sit here and cry about the players we lost and bemoan the players we have. I like what I see right now. A lot of people would wanted us to keep Crawford and Curry. I realize that the Knicks aren't the best environment, but still, there is a direct correlation. A lot if it has to do with the fact that the Bulls were a better team last year because they had balance. However, count me squarely in the camp of following the Detroit/San Antonio model which Paxson also seems to want to abide by. It's about building a team and not accruing talent (NY ring a bell). If we let these young guys grow together, we might be pleased at what we see. Basically, I'm optimistic because these team won 47 games last season, is only 2 games out of the playoffs this year, has about 16 mil in cap space, two potential lottery picks, and four starters under the age of 25. When I get depressed, I think about how the Hawks, Celtics, Warriors, Knicks, and T-Wolves fans must feel.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Keeping Curry != "following the NY Model"

We are in desperate, desperate need of a center... a role that Curry played quite well last season.

Let's hope the Bulls can find a replacement for what we lost and we can go back to being a winner again. 

Too bad we have to suffer through another losing season though.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

T.Shock said:


> However, count me squarely in the camp of following the Detroit/San Antonio model which Paxson also seems to want to abide by. It's about building a team and not accruing talent (NY ring a bell). If we let these young guys grow together, we might be pleased at what we see.


I'm in that camp too, although the Pats had the same philosophy--build through the draft, keep everyone on cheap contracts, turn nobodies into stars, etc--but they still went out and got Corey Dillon, an established star and one of the best backs in the league at the time, when they had a hole at RB.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Maybe we can trade for Dan Gadzuric? After all he has a higher PER than Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Too bad we have to suffer through another losing season though.


I don't think the season is over yet. The Bulls have undoubtedly taken a step back and I'm the first one to admit that the trade of AD and Curry impacted the team more than I anticipated it would - because I didn't think it would impact my projected win total at all (with was about 44 wins). 

But they are currently only 2 games out of the playoffs with a relatively favorable schedule for the remaining 30 games. As disappointing as its been, lets not throw in the towel on this season just yet. Over 1/3 of the games are yet to be played.

I'm stubborn, but I still consider this a playoff caliber team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If Paxson manages to build a Detroit Pistons type team here in Chicago, I'll lead the Paxson Adoration parade in a Spider-Man suit with a pair of Bulls horns on.

I hope it happens.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm stubborn, but I still consider this a playoff caliber team.


While I agree that playoff experience is of some value, even if its a whipping by the Pistons, if we get into the playoffs with a losing record, it really has more to do with the weakness of the East or a ridiculous playoff format than anything positive about the quality of the Bulls. I just can't get fired up about making the playoffs with a losing record. 

If we can finish up with 44-45 wins, it will be a nice turnaround. It could happen.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Maybe we can trade for Dan Gadzuric? After all he has a higher PER than Curry.


Who had the highest PER on the Bulls last season?

Gadzuric would be better than Sweetney.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Eddy Curry is available in this draft?!?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> While I agree that playoff experience is of some value, even if its a whipping by the Pistons, if we get into the playoffs with a losing record, it really has more to do with the weakness of the East or a ridiculous playoff format than anything positive about the quality of the Bulls.
> 
> If we can finish up with 44-45 wins, it will be a nice turnaround. It could happen.


After trading away Curry and AD and getting what has turned out to be no impact players in return (though I stubbornly contend that Sweetney is being underutilized - a minority opinion I know), I think the playoffs at any record would be a solid result leading into this summer when the majority of the best assets acquired in that trade can be put to use. 

Over .500 would be ideal, I'm just rooting for games in May.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think the season is over yet. The Bulls have undoubtedly taken a step back and I'm the first one to admit that the trade of AD and Curry impacted the team more than I anticipated it would - because I didn't think it would impact my projected win total at all (with was about 44 wins).
> 
> But they are currently only 2 games out of the playoffs with a relatively favorable schedule for the remaining 30 games. As disappointing as its been, lets not throw in the towel on this season just yet. Over 1/3 of the games are yet to be played.
> 
> I'm stubborn, but I still consider this a playoff caliber team.


That's a great post, and I still have no doubt that this is a playoff caliber team. And with the way Ben and Tyson are coming on as of late, 47 wins isn't even out of the question (although it would take one hell of a hot streak for us to go 24-6 the rest of the way).

I think people may forget that Tyson and Ben were both top-10 in the league in Crunch Time production, and Tyson was a USA Today 4th Quarter All-NBA 1st team. I think their lack of a repeat performance through most of the first half of the season is a HUGE reason that we have lost 5 games in which we led in the final minute.

If we win those 5 games, we are currently sitting in the #5 seed in the East.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bullsville said:


> I think people may forget that Tyson and Ben were both top-10 in the league in Crunch Time production, and Tyson was a USA Today 4th Quarter All-NBA 1st team. I think their lack of a repeat performance through most of the first half of the season is a HUGE reason that we have lost 5 games in which we led in the final minute.
> 
> If we win those 5 games, we are currently sitting in the #5 seed in the East.


This, plus Tyson's over-all absence for 37 of the first 39 games of the season are the two main reasons for the Bulls current step back. In my opinion.

The loss of Curry/AD is third. Its a factor, and I was wrong in projecting it woudn't be. But its a factor that is getting disporportionate attention when compared to the things that are really ailing this team - closing out games and playing 3 on 5 every game till Chandler got his head out of his ***.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> I understand the fear of blind optimism. I for one was split on the Curry trade. He was our best post scorer and a legitimate center. However, his defense and passing was horrendous. But I refuse to sit here and cry about the players we lost and bemoan the players we have. I like what I see right now. A lot of people would wanted us to keep Crawford and Curry. I realize that the Knicks aren't the best environment, but still, there is a direct correlation. A lot if it has to do with the fact that the Bulls were a better team last year because they had balance. However, count me squarely in the camp of following the Detroit/San Antonio model which Paxson also seems to want to abide by. It's about building a team and not accruing talent (NY ring a bell). If we let these young guys grow together, we might be pleased at what we see. Basically, I'm optimistic because these team won 47 games last season, is only 2 games out of the playoffs this year, has about 16 mil in cap space, two potential lottery picks, and four starters under the age of 25. When I get depressed, I think about how the Hawks, Celtics, Warriors, Knicks, and T-Wolves fans must feel.


I was with you until you grouped Crawford and Curry together. For the love of god can't you support Eddy Curry and not be a Curry/Crawford/Rose/ERob fan? Eddy Curry to me brought something very rare in his post scoring. Whoever came up with the idea that Crawford is "talented" to me, really doesn't know talent. The guy has always sucked. There is a difference between having talent (Curry) and being able to jump high (Crawford, Erob etc.). I'm sorry but I've never defended the Knicks nor wanted to be anything like them. I don't think that to be unlike Paxson means to be the KNicks. We could just be.. what we were last year lol. Novel concept I know. Winning team = keep it together. But like K4E I too am seeing the error of my ways. We all know that this team with AD and Curry on it and Sweetney off it, actually MIGHT be lucky enough to win 4 more games. Oooook.

And as for Curry, his weaknesses were kept in check by his teammates last year. It's funny. You look at Chandler who can't SCORE or CATCH, and the one thing we ask him to do on a special level, rebound, he can't even get double digits per game. We ask the guy to play defense and excel in one stat, rebounding. 

And as far as being 2 out of the playoffs, the playoffs are not some bright line that separates mediocrity from contenders. There will probably be 3-4 mediocre teams in the Eastern playoffs this year. That to me doesn't say one thing about how good this team is, more how sad the Eastern playoff picture is, when a team like ours is two games out.

And as far as the teams you list, I don't understand what you're trying to prove, because I've never advocated being like any of them.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> After trading away Curry and AD and getting what has turned out to be no impact players in return (though I stubbornly contend that Sweetney is being underutilized - a minority opinion I know), I think the playoffs at any record would be a solid result leading into this summer when the majority of the best assets acquired in that trade can be put to use.
> 
> Over .500 would be ideal, I'm just rooting for games in May.


I actually agree. At the end of the night, when McDonalds is getting ready to throw the old Big Macs out in the dumpster, Sweets usually stops by for about 5 of them, when I think he could be throwing down probably 10 Big Macs, a couple fries and whatever is left of the "dollar menu" from that day.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> This, plus Tyson's over-all absence for 37 of the first 39 games of the season are the two main reasons for the Bulls current step back. In my opinion.
> 
> The loss of Curry/AD is third. Its a factor, and I was wrong in projecting it woudn't be. But its a factor that is getting disporportionate attention when compared to the things that are really ailing this team - closing out games and playing 3 on 5 every game till Chandler got his head out of his ***.


And you'd think he'd be villified for doing this, but it's "awww shucks, looks like Tyson finally got it together. I mean, the poor guy had to deal with being married in the beginning of the season." I always thought that getting big money and not showing up for a whole half of a season made you a hated man in Chicago no matter what you did for the rest of the time there. But then again, like K4E says, this is the "No Excuses" regime. More like "no excuses.... unless you're talking about MY favorite player then it's come on what did you want the guy to do! He's so 'solid'." 

I can't believe Jerry's jelly doughnut eating face traded Brand for this chump. Tyson is finally playing defense and rebounding. All we ask him to do. Forget that he's still not in double digits in RPG, at least he's DOING it. I guess I could jump for joy.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)




----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


>


the draft is as weak as a red x?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> the draft is as weak as a red x?


Did you say a red x? Quick grab a shovel, there be buried treasure, yarrr!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> And you'd think he'd be villified for doing this, but it's "awww shucks, looks like Tyson finally got it together. I mean, the poor guy had to deal with being married in the beginning of the season." I always thought that getting big money and not showing up for a whole half of a season made you a hated man in Chicago no matter what you did for the rest of the time there. But then again, like K4E says, this is the "No Excuses" regime. More like "no excuses.... unless you're talking about MY favorite player then it's come on what did you want the guy to do! He's so 'solid'."
> 
> I can't believe Jerry's jelly doughnut eating face traded Brand for this chump. Tyson is finally playing defense and rebounding. All we ask him to do. Forget that he's still not in double digits in RPG, at least he's DOING it. I guess I could jump for joy.


EDIT

If you want to criticize Tyson's game, that's great- he sure as hell earned all the criticism he got over the first 38 games of the season. EDIT if you just read the last page of this thread you will see that Tyson is getting most of the blame for this team being behind last year's pace.

This thread was allegedly about the draft, if you want to complain about people not criticizing Tyson enough, please start another thread EDIT


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

So back to the weak draft. There are alot of gems in there, although young. My favorite so far is Julian Wright. What is he, a 4? a 3? Who cares. Put him in when you find a Center, and he'll feed him all day long, entry passes that make me cry they are so good.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> That's a great post, and I still have no doubt that this is a playoff caliber team. And with the way Ben and Tyson are coming on as of late, 47 wins isn't even out of the question (although it would take one hell of a hot streak for us to go 24-6 the rest of the way).
> 
> I think people may forget that Tyson and Ben were both top-10 in the league in Crunch Time production, and Tyson was a USA Today 4th Quarter All-NBA 1st team. I think their lack of a repeat performance through most of the first half of the season is a HUGE reason that we have lost 5 games in which we led in the final minute.
> 
> If we win those 5 games, we are currently sitting in the #5 seed in the East.


The play off picture as far as I'm concerned is we have to catch philly, who we play another 3 times this season.

Win those three games and play .500 ball against everyone else and we're in the playoffs.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

step said:


> Did you say a red x? Quick grab a shovel, there be buried treasure, yarrr!


:rofl:


----------

