# Death to Jib.



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Is this a basketball team or a Sunday school?

Paxson thinks that most players are naturally bad jib guys, all team-killers, and you have to go out and find the good ones, no matter if they can play or not.

But really, the majority of guys in the NBA can play with just about anybody with no problems. It's the handful of bad apples that you have to avoid. That's what Paxson doesn't understand.

Yeah, our guys play well together. But our guys suck. So it gets us nowhere.

The Knicks don't play well together. But they're extremely talented. So it gets them nowhere.

While jib is important, it should not be the deciding factor in building a team. You need a combination of jib and talent. Just one of those won't get you anywhere. The Spurs and Pistons won the recent 'ships largely because of chemistry, but moreso because their guys could flat-out play.

If Pax was GM for the first three-peat, Horace would have been the hell out of Chicago in a heartbeat, and we would not have won squat. Heck, would Pax have drafted Michael? Probably not.

I'm sick of this ****.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

So Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Chandler have no talent whatsover? Its not about jib, Im tired of that word. What trade has Paxson turned down because of a jib-less player changing sides? I dont know. 

But Im not surprised by the timing of this post.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> So Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Chandler have no talent whatsover?


No, but it's obvious Pax is afraid of bringing in anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry that's working so well for us right now. Hell, look at the Tim Thomas situation. There's a reason we only draft and acquire the guys we do.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> So Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Chandler have no talent whatsover? Its not about jib, Im tired of that word. What trade has Paxson turned down because of a jib-less player changing sides?



Yeah i agree. The overuse of that word is confusing some people here.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> No, but it's obvious Pax is afraid of bringing in anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry that's working so well for us right now. Hell, look at the Tim Thomas situation. There's a reason we only draft and acquire the guys we do.


Its Tim Thomas, he is a dork and clearly doesnt belong here. You cant make a case for guys like him, E-Rob, etc. 

I dont have prove to suggest Pax is afraid to bring anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry. One thing is wanting to stick with this core, giving it time to grow together, and something different is to be afraid to pull a trade for (fill here). IMO Pax wants to keep the main pieces of the core and impreove via draft and free agency, with trades being a last resort or if a big opportunity presents itself. 

I agree he would stay away from certain players, but he is not afraid of talented players. Maybe he overrates our guys potential, but you cant blame him for wanting to stick with this group after what they accomplished last season.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> No, but it's obvious Pax is afraid of bringing in anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry that's working so well for us right now. Hell, look at the Tim Thomas situation. There's a reason we only draft and acquire the guys we do.



Tim Thomas wouldn't really help us. 

Name us a player Pax passed up in the draft (and has bad jib) that is more talented than Gordon, Luol, Hinrich, or Duhon.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> Its Tim Thomas, he is a dork and clearly doesnt belong here. You cant make a case for guys like him, E-Rob, etc.
> 
> I dont have prove to suggest Pax is afraid to bring anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry. One thing is wanting to stick with this core, giving it time to grow together, and something different is to be afraid to pull a trade for (fill here). IMO Pax wants to keep the main pieces of the core and impreove via draft and free agency, with trades being a last resort or if a big opportunity presents itself.
> 
> I agree he would stay away from certain players, but he is not afraid of talented players. Maybe he overrates our guys potential, but you cant blame him for wanting to stick with this group after what they accomplished last season.


I don't blame him for wanting to stick with this group; I'm actually very sick the immensely popular "luol and ben aren't HOFers after 1 year, trade them" philosophy. But I just felt like pointing out that you can't win ONLY with jib, that you need talent too, which I'm not sure Pax believes.

I mean honestly, could you ever see the Bulls going for anybody with superstar potential? I feel like Pax would get too concerned about them potentially taking too many shots and messing up the chemistry that way. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

jimmy said:


> Tim Thomas wouldn't really help us.
> 
> Name us a player Pax passed up in the draft (and has bad jib) that is more talented than Gordon, Luol, Hinrich, or Duhon.


It's not so much stuff that has happened as much as stuff that could in the future... I can't see Pax ever going for anybody not out of Duke, Kansas, UCONN, Kentucky, etc. As I said, I'm more concerned with the fact that Pax places the importance of jib far above the importance of potential.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> I mean honestly, could you ever see the Bulls going for anybody with superstar potential? I feel like Pax would get too concerned about them potentially taking too many shots and messing up the chemistry that way. That's what I'm talking about.



Although they really didn't have the money to make a legit offer, Paxson and Skiles made a run at Kobe Bryant a couple of years ago. I remember Kobe saying he was really impressed and listed Chicago as his 2nd option. Kobe's a superstar with some questionable jib.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> I mean honestly, could you ever see the Bulls going for anybody with superstar potential? I feel like Pax would get too concerned about them potentially taking too many shots and messing up the chemistry that way. That's what I'm talking about.


This makes no sense to me. Why would you draft Ben Gordon, a 6' 2" shooting guard, if you didn't think he was going to be a superstar, or at least had a chance?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This makes no sense to me. Why would you draft Ben Gordon, a 6' 2" shooting guard, if you didn't think he was going to be a superstar, or at least had a chance?


Yeah, that wasn't the best way to put it. I meant more about acquiring one in a different way. But whatever.

Maybe my point isn't solely about jib as much as it is about Paxson's philosophy in general. I feel like he takes the whole chemistry/role-player philosophy a little too far. I just get the feeling he counts on complimentary players and chemistry to get us to the next level, and I don't think that works as well as he does. If you look at all his moves since he took over, they all point to him having that philosophy: that he would rather have a Songaila, a mediocre-to-good player with good jib who will play well with the other guys, over a ball-hog, but someone that can put points up, and rely on chemistry to give you that extra something. Maybe I have no basis to my argument, I don't know. But it seems that way to me.

I guess it's more about risk than anything else. I find it hard to see him not always taking the safest route. Players from established college programs, instead of "projects" with more potential, etc. Team players instead of a star who may jeapordize chemistry. Stuff like that.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> Yeah, that wasn't the best way to put it. I meant more about acquiring one in a different way. But whatever.
> 
> Maybe my point isn't solely about jib as much as it is about Paxson's philosophy in general. I feel like he takes the whole chemistry/role-player philosophy a little too far. I just get the feeling he counts on complimentary players and chemistry to get us to the next level, and I don't think that works as well as he does. If you look at all his moves since he took over, they all point to him having that philosophy: that he would rather have a Songaila, a mediocre-to-good player with good jib who will play well with the other guys, over a ball-hog, but someone that can put points up, and rely on chemistry to give you that extra something. Maybe I have no basis to my argument, I don't know. But it seems that way to me.




I think you need to give Paxson a couple more years before you make that kind of conclusion. I mean, how are Rose, Crawford, Curry, and Marshall doing?

This summer will be huge for him, that's for sure.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> I don't blame him for wanting to stick with this group; I'm actually very sick the immensely popular "luol and ben aren't HOFers after 1 year, trade them" philosophy. But I just felt like pointing out that you can't win ONLY with jib, that you need talent too, which I'm not sure Pax believes.
> 
> I mean honestly, could you ever see the Bulls going for anybody with superstar potential? I feel like Pax would get too concerned about them potentially taking too many shots and messing up the chemistry that way. That's what I'm talking about.


I disagree. So Pax wouldnt take a guy like Duncan or Garnett (who is linked with Chicago every year) because they might take shots away from guys like Songaila, Chandler, Duhon, Nocioni, Allen? I dont buy that argument for a second. Of course he would rather have a superstar taking those shots instead of the guys listed.

And dont you think it would help when it comes to officiating, something he has openly complained (and fined) about? A superstar, the right superstar, takes pressure away from everybody, including guys like Gordon and Hinrich that sometimes try to do too much. 

I dont think Paxson believes you can win a championship with jib alone. Jib alone players are role players that help to solidify the main core (Gordon, Hinrich, Deng, Chandler), but are not the base for any big time achievement. 

Which is Pax dream target, as McGraw suggested? Chris Bosh. And isnt he one of the most talented big men in the entire league? Obviously it doesnt hurt that he is jibby, but talent is what you see when a player hits the hardwood.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

jimmy said:


> I think you need to give Paxson a couple more years before you make that kind of conclusion. I mean, how are Rose, Crawford, Curry, and Marshall doing?


What's ironic is that I completely agree with that, I've been saying you need to give him time, etc. I feel like the Rose/Crawford/Marshall thing was one side of the spectrum, and the current team is the other. I feel like most successful teams are somewhere in between. The Pistons got Sheed, the Pats got Corey Dillon and Rodney Harrison, and all of them were already well-established complete dicks. But it filled a need and gave them a star at the position. I feel like Pax would never make a move that radical. Pax would have stayed with Kevin Faulk instead of Dillon, because Dillon could cause chemistry problems, but at the same time would give them a tremendous skill increase at the position.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> I disagree. So Pax wouldnt take a guy like Duncan or Garnett (who is linked with Chicago every year) because they might take shots away from guys like Songaila, Chandler, Duhon, Nocioni, Allen? I dont buy that argument for a second. Of course he would rather have a superstar taking those shots instead of the guys listed.


Not exactly. It depends on who the guy is. I feel like to him there are very few guys like that with good jib, guys he would want.



> I dont think Paxson believes you can win a championship with jib alone. Jib alone players are role players that help to solidify the main core (Gordon, Hinrich, Deng, Chandler), but are not the base for any big time achievement.


But our "main core" are all complimentary players. That's our problem--none of those guys will be the guy that the others can be considered complimentary to. That's my point--that I think Pax believes that a solid core with good jib is better than a superstar.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> Not exactly. It depends on who the guy is. I feel like to him there are very few guys like that with good jib, guys he would want.
> 
> 
> 
> But our "main core" are all complimentary players. That's our problem--none of those guys will be the guy that the others can be considered complimentary to. That's my point--that I think Pax believes that a solid core with good jib is better than a superstar.


Well, as I said before, I dont have prove to support the theory that Pax wouldnt trade for certain superstars, right price aside. What about you? 

And Pax has a different philosophy, since there isnt one road to glory. The Lakers won win two superstars and the Pistons won with a different mold, one that Pax tries to resembles. From an individual standpoint, is there a big talent (since you are all about it) difference between Billups/Hamilton and Hinrich/Gordon? What about Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler? So Deng or Noc cant do what Prince does night in and out? Which Piston is a legit superstar, that single player you would build your team around? Rasheed? Billups? Hardly any of them. On the other hand, Tim Duncan is a guy that you compliment and go from there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This makes no sense to me. Why would you draft Ben Gordon, a 6' 2" shooting guard, if you didn't think he was going to be a superstar, or at least had a chance?


Well, you could also argue that he was the jibbiest player on the board at 3 (and that Deng was the next jibbiest), could you not?

I don't doubt that Paxson sees superstar potential in Ben, but it does have at least some of the signs of a pedigree/jib/"winner" pick, given that we had Hinrich already and a screaming, long-unfulfilled need for a legitimate 2 (I've given up caring that this shortcoming still hasn't been addressed).

Note: Ben is clearly a very special and unique player. It means something that Ainge and Bird and others were trying to trade up for him. I'm just not sure he was the right pick for us.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> Well, as I said before, I dont have prove to support the theory that Pax wouldnt trade for certain superstars, right price aside. What about you?
> 
> And Pax has a different philosophy, since there isnt one road to glory. The Lakers won win two superstars and the Pistons won with a different mold, one that Pax tries to resembles. From an individual standpoint, is there a big talent (since you are all about it) difference between Billups/Hamilton and Hinrich/Gordon? What about Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler? So Deng or Noc cant do what Prince does night in and out? Which Piston is a legit superstar, that single player you would build your team around? Rasheed? Billups? Hardly any of them. On the other hand, Tim Duncan is a guy that you compliment and go from there.


Yes, there is a big talent difference between Billups/Hamilton and Hinrich/Gordon, Wallace/Chandler, and Deng/Noc/Prince. I have trouble telling if this is sarcastic or not.

If it's not sarcastic:
Billups is one of if not the best points in the game.
Hamilton is the best shooter in the game.
Wallace is the best rebounder in the game.
Prince is the one exception, but at this point he is better than Luol or Noc.

I would build around Billups, Sheed, probably Hamilton.

Fact is that they play very well complimenting eachother, but they can flat-out play better than any of our guys can. But that's not what this was about in the first place.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> Yes, there is a big talent difference between Billups/Hamilton and Hinrich/Gordon, Wallace/Chandler, and Deng/Noc/Prince. I have trouble telling if this is sarcastic or not.
> 
> If it's not sarcastic:
> Billups is one of if not the best points in the game.
> ...


So why exactly those players changed places throughout their carrers? After how many seasons did you realize that Billups is a guy you can build your team around? Same with Hamilton? So why dont give our guys some damn time.

BTW, I dont agree that Billups or Hamilton are guys you build your team around. 

And Chandler can be as good as Ben Wallace, no doubt. And he proved to be so valuable in many games down the stretch, basically saving our team ***.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> So why exactly those players changed places throughout their carrers? After how many seasons did you realize that Billups is a guy you can build your team around? Same with Hamilton? So why dont give our guys some damn time.
> 
> BTW, I dont agree that Billups or Hamilton are guys you build your team around.
> 
> And Chandler can be as good as Ben Wallace, no doubt. And he proved to be so valuable in many games down the stretch, basically saving our team ***.


1) Because at those points they weren't nearly as good. The jib in Detroit had a lot to do with that. That's exactly my point. That they had a combination of jib and talent. Nobody can tell me that any of those guys right now are not great players. I'm all for giving our guys some time, but if they don't have the talent in the first place, like a lot of people think Luol don't, for instance... then it will never happen.
It's not like those guys came out of nowhere. Chauncey was the #3 overall pick, Hamilton averaged 20 ppg in WAS, Sheed was Sheed, etc. They had the talent to begin with. I'm not sure all of our guys do. But that's not my point.

2) Enough teams are built around great PGs or scorers.

3) He can be very good, but the top rebounder and interior defender in the NBA? Doubtful. "he proved valuable down the stretch..." yeah, so are a lot of players, but that doesn't make them great.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> 1) Because at those points they weren't nearly as good. The jib in Detroit had a lot to do with that. That's exactly my point. That they had a combination of jib and talent. Nobody can tell me that any of those guys right now are not great players. I'm all for giving our guys some time, but if they don't have the talent in the first place, like a lot of people think Luol don't, for instance... then it will never happen.
> It's not like those guys came out of nowhere. Chauncey was the #3 overall pick, Hamilton averaged 20 ppg in WAS, Sheed was Sheed, etc. They had the talent to begin with. I'm not sure all of our guys do. But that's not my point.
> 
> 2) Enough teams are built around great PGs or scorers.
> ...


1) Well, if they werent good and you dont consider Gordon and Hinrich good players, give them some time to develop. You cant argue both of our guards dont have talent + jib, because they sure have it. Well, Deng can be a better, more complete player than Prince. As Prince, he can do many things right but he isnt exceptional talented. Ben can average, easily, 20 points in the NBA. The Pistons won as a team, not because one or two of them. You can make a good case that without one of them (particulary Billups, Hamilton, Ben or Rasheed) they wouldnt have won the crown. That is what Pax is trying to do.

2) Well, we have one in Gordon.

3) Chandler can be a top rebounder in the NBA, I have no doubts. Dont you think he can pull down 12 rebounds per night or close to that number? I dont know how many players constantly prove to be very valuable from a defensive standpoint during crunch time. I know Chandler has constantly given us that intimidating presence, even when he didnt block a shot. 
BTW, take a look at Tyson's numbers (since he get in a rythm late january till now) for further proof:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3512/gamelog;_ylt=ArRgGM2qPAwxGgz2afNKGOukvLYF


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Its Tim Thomas, he is a dork and clearly doesnt belong here. You cant make a case for guys like him, E-Rob, etc.
> 
> I dont have prove to suggest Pax is afraid to bring anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry. One thing is wanting to stick with this core, giving it time to grow together, and something different is to be afraid to pull a trade for (fill here). IMO Pax wants to keep the main pieces of the core and impreove via draft and free agency, with trades being a last resort or if a big opportunity presents itself.
> 
> I agree he would stay away from certain players, but he is not afraid of talented players. Maybe he overrates our guys potential, but you cant blame him for wanting to stick with this group after what they accomplished last season.


Seriously, what the F is so special about this core?? I get so sick of hearing this. We have a bunch of guys who are decent players and probably no one who is one of the best 40 players in the league, maybe even 50. Who are people confusing these guys for? Do we even have one player who has any chance at all of being as good as Joe Dumars or Dennis Johnson? NO!

Who do we have one this team?? WHO? Who is part of this beloved core?

Tyson Chandler: Otis Thorpe YAWN
Kirk Hinrich: Derek Harper YAWN
Ben Gordon: Danny Ainge YAWN
Luol Deng: Chuck Persons YAWN
Andres Nocioni: Detlef Schrempf YAWN
Chris Duhon: Haywoode Workman YAWN
Michael Sweetney: Oprah Winfrey YAWN
Darius Songaila: Anthony Bonner YAWN

Who am I missing on this beloved core? What future 70 greatest player am I missing. I just don't see anything about this team


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> So why exactly those players changed places throughout their carrers? After how many seasons did you realize that Billups is a guy you can build your team around? Same with Hamilton? So why dont give our guys some damn time.
> 
> BTW, I dont agree that Billups or Hamilton are guys you build your team around.
> 
> And Chandler can be as good as Ben Wallace, no doubt. And he proved to be so valuable in many games down the stretch, basically saving our team ***.


Right now we're trailing Detroit by 21.5 games. I think there's more than just a incremental difference between Billups/Hinrich, Gordon/Hamilton, Prince/Deng, Wallace/Chandler, etc.

And the fact that all of Detroit's starters but Prince wasn't homegrown is very telling. It's hard enough to keep ONE promising young player until he's realized his potential, let alone four or five. At some point we are going to lose one or more of our core to other teams.

And the team that I consider to be most historically similar to the Pistons, the early 70s Knicks -- a truly great team minus a franchise player -- also didn't really click until "outsiders" were brought in. First Barnett and DeBusschere, then later Earl Monroe.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> you dont consider Gordon and Hinrich good players,


I do.



> give them some time to develop. You cant argue both of our guards dont have talent + jib,


Never said they don't. But they may not have either of those to the extent they need it, or may have other things holding them back, like Ben's height.



> Well, Deng can be a better, more complete player than Prince.


But he's not.



> The Pistons won as a team, not because one or two of them. You can make a good case that without one of them (particulary Billups, Hamilton, Ben or Rasheed) they wouldnt have won the crown. That is what Pax is trying to do.
> 
> I agree. However, maybe our guys don't have as much talent or skill to begin with at the positions the Pistons do. We still lack a competent post threat as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Right now we're trailing Detroit by 21.5 games. I think there's more than just a incremental difference between Billups/Hinrich, Gordon/Hamilton, Prince/Deng, Wallace/Chandler, etc.
> 
> And the fact that all of Detroit's starters but Prince wasn't homegrown is very telling. It's hard enough to keep ONE promising young player until he's realized his potential, let alone four or five. At some point we are going to lose one or more of our core to other teams.
> 
> And the team that I consider to be most historically similar to the Pistons, the early 70s Knicks -- a truly great team minus a franchise player -- also didn't really click until "outsiders" were brought in. First Barnett and DeBusschere, then later Earl Monroe.


I think the bigger difference is chemistry and team overall strenght. We wouldnt have a positive record with Billups instead of Hinrich, for example. They even make some people question if they were reaching the Bulls record (72-10), so Im not saying we are in the same class with the Pistons, not even close. 

I dont buy the "outsider" theory. Although it wouldnt hurt if the Bulls could add someone with the talent of Rasheed. The Spurs won with homegrown talent as well, so theres not such thing like you must bring your key players from outside the organization. 

People want to go from worst team to championship caliber, and it wont happen overnight.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

OK, redirecting this back to the original topic.

IMO, the range of players Paxson considers to have "good jib" is far too narrow, thus making it much, much harder for us to really get anything done as far as player acquisition goes, and therefore much harder for us to be successful.

Almost every great scorer has a selfish streak, something Paxson would frown on. That's why I feel we'll always be limited to a bunch of complimentary players.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Can you tell me 10 franchise players Paxson wouldnt trade for?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

El Chapu said:


> Can you tell me 10 franchise players Paxson wouldnt trade for?


All great players have something that separates them from the rest of the pack and makes them that great, usually a jib issue such as a selfish streak, something Paxson wouldn't have.

Somebody whose name I don't remember said in the "LeBron booed" thread, "too bad he isn't a jib player or else the Bulls could get him" That's what I'm talking about here.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

We are obviously a team that needs a primary scorer, because we just look confused as hell on offense. The Pistons get away without having one, because for some reason, they can play much better team ball than we can.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> All great players have something that separates them from the rest of the pack and makes them that great, usually a jib issue such as a selfish streak, something Paxson wouldn't have.
> 
> Somebody whose name I don't remember said in the "LeBron booed" thread, "too bad he isn't a jib player or else the Bulls could get him" That's what I'm talking about here.


Haha, obviously that was a funny remark because Pax would kill for someone like LeBron. I think we are kidding ourselves, blowing things out of proportion.

Btw...have to go. Good night, guys. Take care.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> We wouldnt have a positive record with Billups instead of Hinrich, for example.


I don't see how you can argue this. Billups runs an offense better, he punishes people with the three, he gets to the line in droves (esp in Q4) . . . 



> I dont buy the "outsider" theory. Although it wouldnt hurt if the Bulls could add someone with the talent of Rasheed. The Spurs won with homegrown talent as well, so theres not such thing like you must bring your key players from outside the organization.


We're talking about two distinctly different models of building a championship team. Most championships have been won by teams with a so-called "franchise player" -- a multiple-MVP-caliber, first-ballot Hall-of-Fame type player. Russell, Chamberlain, Magic, Jordan, Bird, Shaq, Duncan. Big-time megastars. 

Those sorts of teams can and often are made up of homegrown players selected to complement the franchise player. I'm not saying the Spurs weren't mostly homegrown -- heck, the Bulls were pretty much homegrown. The key is that every single personnel decision is made with the franchise player in mind.

On the other, and much more infrequently occurring, side of the equation, we have a team like the 70s Knicks or the current Pistons. There you don't have the megastar, but a group of really good players -- a top 5 or 6 guy at most positions. If we're following that model, I don't see how it can be successful without our consolidating or bringing in talent from another team.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

With every draft pick Pax has made, I believe he tried to take the best player available. Bottom line. I don't feel like he drafts lesser players because they have great jib. That's crap. Pax drafted Ben Gordon because he thought he was a special talent. Ben slapped a woman around in college... Did that earn him jib points with Pax? C'mon. Pax took Deng instead of Iggy for one simple reason... he felt Deng was the better player. Maybe he's wrong in that evaluation, but I have zero reason to believe he passed on Iggy because Deng had the better "jib."


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Well, you could also argue that he was the jibbiest player on the board at 3 (and that Deng was the next jibbiest), could you not?
> 
> I don't doubt that Paxson sees superstar potential in Ben, but it does have at least some of the signs of a pedigree/jib/"winner" pick, given that we had Hinrich already and a screaming, long-unfulfilled need for a legitimate 2 (I've given up caring that this shortcoming still hasn't been addressed).
> 
> Note: Ben is clearly a very special and unique player. It means something that Ainge and Bird and others were trying to trade up for him. I'm just not sure he was the right pick for us.


Ben is not jibbier than Josh Childress! Stanford, man, Stanford!

God I was happy when Atlanta took Childress at 6.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> No, but it's obvious Pax is afraid of bringing in anybody that could disrupt our beloved chemistry that's working so well for us right now. Hell, look at the Tim Thomas situation. There's a reason we only draft and acquire the guys we do.


Again, how could Gordon have been considered a jib guy? He was in trouble for domestic abuse and was not known as a great defender. 

I don't think the TT situation can be extrapolated to prove anything.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> Is this a basketball team or a Sunday school?
> 
> Paxson thinks that most players are naturally bad jib guys, all team-killers, and you have to go out and find the good ones, no matter if they can play or not.
> 
> ...


Again, this is the cartoon version of Pax' player philosophy that his detractors have sold.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Again, this is the cartoon version of Pax' player philosophy that his detractors have sold.


Yup. It's very easy to create a caricature and then knock that caricature for the characteristics that have been exaggerated to make the real figure a caricature.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Question for those questioning Paxson's picks in the 04 draft. Who would you have rather had at #3? From what I've seen in a year and a half, Gordon may end up being the best player from a decent draft. I can't see anybody I'd rather have than Gordon that was drafted in the 1st round. Claiming Gordon can't be a star player, after winning 6th man of the year in his rookie season, is just unfounded pessimism. The only debate could be Deng versus Iguodala. You know what I think it might be time for an Iggy update thread since most of the people here are concerned about the players we used to have instead of the players we do have. It's ridiculous.


----------



## kirkisgod (Jul 25, 2005)

We'll see what Paxson does in the coming draft. Adam Morrison is a player thought not to have a boatload of jib but he is very talented. Lets see if Pax drafts him.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I don't see how you can argue this. Billups runs an offense better, he punishes people with the three, he gets to the line in droves (esp in Q4) . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I, for one, dont believe the Bulls would have a positive record with Billups instead of Hinrich. You mentioned Billups is better, which we are not arguing, but would he improve this Bulls team drastically? No.

And no one believes this current group, without adding talent, can compete for a championship. Thats why we will most probably add someone like Harrington, Gooden, etc during the offseason (then we can discuss if they are the right players to sign, but thats not the point), and we have two Top 10 picks or close to it if this team doesnt improve drastically down the stretch. And we have the Knicks pick in 2007 (saying they would have a worst record than the Bulls leading to changing picks) in a draft with some size. 

With all that in mind, we can only improve. Paxson will trade some of the current Bulls for the right players, or his draft picks, but he doensnt want to shorten the window opportunity. If you trade two of our core guys for Garnett, your window opportunity is 3 or 4 years tops. You are building around a 30 years old guy for a small chance as far as competing with the Spurs and Pistons go.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its pretty sad that adding an all-star level player like Chauncey Billups would not even make the Bulls a mediocre, slightly above .500 team.

Year 3 on the job. An all-star addition would not get us to .500. Ouch. Rough days. Especially when last year at this time we were battling for home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs. What on earth changed?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Again, this is the cartoon version of Pax' player philosophy that his detractors have sold.


yes, and the whole idea that jib and jib alone as the primary guiding philosophy has never once been uttered by paxson himself. has anyone ever heard pax, whether on the radio, on tv or in print actually utter the word "jib"?

it was invented here at bbb.net. and it's taken on an enormous life of it's own. used to "prove" stuff about the bulls front office that may or may not be true, depending on your party line. 

it's used conveniently to bash pax and his picks and his moves when things are rough. i don't know about you guys, but it's always had an element of fiction to it. trouble is, people actually think this is something that pax subscribes to absolutely.

it's like big foot at this point. you know, you've heard it's name, heard all the stories but never actually seen the beast. 

least that's how i view it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Seriously, what the F is so special about this core?? I get so sick of hearing this. We have a bunch of guys who are decent players and probably no one who is one of the best 40 players in the league, maybe even 50. Who are people confusing these guys for? Do we even have one player who has any chance at all of being as good as Joe Dumars or Dennis Johnson? NO!
> 
> Who do we have one this team?? WHO? Who is part of this beloved core?
> 
> ...



And finally someone has said it. Thank you. Our core is not one who can win you a title. Our core are second (Gordon) or maybe third options on a championship team. More like 4th options. Some of our core dont even play on a championship team (Sweetney, maybe Songailia was like a 10th guy on those good Sac teams). Our core needs to be overhauled. I really think only Gordon starts on more then half the teams in the league. Deng, maybe, eventually certainly. Nocioni can play on any team but strictly off the bench. We dont have a core, thats the point. There is no length, athleticism or personality to this bunch. What we have are complimentary players and a coach who has gotten more out of them then most would have. Unfortunately the coach cant seem to get along with star players. Pip got it right, the core isnt that special. Anyone can see that. And why should we waste 4 or 5 years watching this thing grow (I mean, havent we spent 3 years seeing if Kirk can just break .400?) when the ceiling clearly isnt high? I mean, trade the entire core, minus Ben, to Toronto and get Bosh, clearly a player you can build around. Thats what I say. Does Pax have the ballz? I dont think so, but thats not entirely his fault since JR doesnt care enough to fire him. Pax knows it so why should we expect him to be creative or daring?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> yes, and the whole idea that jib and jib alone as the primary guiding philosophy has never once been uttered by paxson himself. has anyone ever heard pax, whether on the radio, on tv or in print actually utter the word "jib"?
> 
> it was invented here at bbb.net. and it's taken on an enormous life of it's own. used to "prove" stuff about the bulls front office that may or may not be true, depending on your party line.
> 
> ...


I think when you look at his actions and not his words (I've never understood the assertion that we need to rely on his words or quotes for anything), many of the things put forth about paxson are easy to ascertain. 

There is a middle ground on Paxson. It is possible to praise him for many good moves and then line up a few really bad ones. I've always said overall I think Paxson is a "good" GM. It just takes a lot more than good. If you go low risk in today's NBA, it's pretty easy to be good. 

I don't think people are guilty of witch-hunting Paxson. Now, Eddy Curry last year, maybe.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> yes, and the whole idea that jib and jib alone as the primary guiding philosophy has never once been uttered by paxson himself. has anyone ever heard pax, whether on the radio, on tv or in print actually utter the word "jib"?
> 
> it was invented here at bbb.net. and it's taken on an enormous life of it's own. used to "prove" stuff about the bulls front office that may or may not be true, depending on your party line.
> 
> ...



To be honest, I wasnt around when "jib" got invented so I cant even say for sure that I know what it means. I have always taken it as attitude or having a proper attitude, pedigree or work ethic. Correct me if I am wrong. No, Pax has never used the word "jib" but he has said "doing things the right way" on more then one occasion. I think thats pretty close to the same thing. He has also said that going to a Duke Practice is better then watching a talented HS player play. Since Duke seems to be equal to "jib", I guess that would be reconfirmation. Everything he has done seems to reconfirm that he likes "jib". I mean, does anyone really think he would take on a player like Rasheed Wallace? There is nothing in his 3 years as GM to lead me to believe he would take on risk. In fact, all he has done in the last 3 years is to lower risk. But as I have said, and feel 100% confident that it has been proven, you have to take risk on to have reward. Pax hasnt really done that. I have laid down some things Pax could do to be a leader in the basketball world. Go to Africa and along with Dallas, set up camps there. Same with Asia. The Bulls have the money. Be there for when the next big thing comes out. Expand international scouting in general. The Bulls have a pathetically low amount of scouts internationally. And occasionally be willing to go after a player who might not fit the mold of correct attitude. If Damon Stoudamire, for instance, could help the Bulls, SIGN HIM. Dont let his past dictate the opinion of a player like that. It could be a player like Demarr Johnson as well. The Bulls can not let division opponents like Detroit continuously pick up players like Rasheed Wallace without atleast trying to acquire players like that.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm not willing to, nor am i giving pax a free pass. heck, i wrote an op-ed fan opinion thing that got published in the freakin' chicago tribune that took him (and skiles) to task for not filling the blatant holes created in the eddy/AD trade. look it up. i said it was "on him". 

what i am talking about in my post is how this whole jib thing has taken on a life larger than it's own (it is cartoonish, like tb#1 said) and trying to point out that it was invented here for our own use and sometimes misuse. 

i somehow don't think pax has a big sign over his desk that says "JIB or DEATH" or anything like that. 

this is so funny to me. 

to me a guy who has a good jib isn't that he's a choir boy (we all have our skeletons) but that a guy who has a good jib has a PROFOUND LOVE OF THE GAME and isn't in it for himself or his stats. it's about the win. i mean would anyone want steve francis on this team? no, of course not. KG on the other hand, well, his jib is crisp, his talent is great, and he is someone who pax has hinted at really coveting. jib can equal talent you know. 

KG OR BUST! 


lol. carry on.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The value of jib is the crux of the talent vs jib debate that has the undercurrent of the board for the last couple of years.

Paxolytes were more than happy to shout jib from the highest rooftops last season. Now that this team, the jibbiest on record, appears to be a failure to this point, its time to distance Paxson from jib. 

The Paxolytes voted the slogan of this board as "Jib Central" for a reason. Its core to the team, and its the jib side of the talent vs jib debate. Paxson may not use the word jib, but what jib represents is clearly, IMO, the core philosophy of "the right way" regime.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not willing to, nor am i giving pax a free pass. heck, i wrote an op-ed fan opinion thing that got published in the freakin' chicago tribune that took him (and skiles) to task for not filling the blatant holes created in the eddy/AD trade. look it up. i said it was "on him".
> 
> what i am talking about in my post is how this whole jib thing has taken on a life larger than it's own (it is cartoonish, like tb#1 said) and trying to point out that it was invented here for our own use and sometimes misuse.
> 
> ...



For the record, totally understood. If there is anyone on this board who is even keel on this issue, its you. 

I took my name of the Fire Pax list but have considered putting it back on recently. I just cant stand that he was handed this job without anyone else even being interviewed. Does anyone really think he was the most qualified? I dont know if that is good jib or not but the fact he was handed this job has led to a corporate culture that clearly doesnt work. Its Paxs way or the highway (see Eddy Curry). And also leads to perhaps some corners being cut. I mean, after all, JR couldnt be bothered to work hard to find a GM so why should Pax interview any other people to be a head coach? I mean, Skiles was handed the job as easy as Pax was handed his. Again, not good for the culture. And I think its fairly safe to say that Pax isnt logging the frequent flier miles that someone like Joe Dumars has and Pax has 2 lottery picks. Pax isnt Isiah Thomas, and Thank God for that, but he isnt doing a great job either. And his handling of the Curry situation will not help him in FA.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The value of jib is the crux of the talent vs jib debate that has the undercurrent of the board for the last couple of years.
> 
> Paxolytes were more than happy to shout jib from the highest rooftops last season. Now that this team, the jibbiest on record, appears to be a failure to this point, its time to distance Paxson from jib.
> 
> The Paxolytes voted the slogan of this board as "Jib Central" for a reason. Its core to the team, and its the jib side of the talent vs jib debate. Paxson may not use the word jib, but what jib represents is clearly, IMO, the core philosophy of "the right way" regime.


I had mixed feelings when Paxson said on the radio this year that the team needs a star. For one, it assumed the team has no stars, which may have been slightly insulting to some of the young players on the team, who might develop into stars (though it looks less and less likely). But on the other hand, I totally agree with Paxson, and I am glad he realizes that you need a star. The question is how to find one that fits. 

Young stars like LeBron, Wade, Okafor and Howard are totally untouchable. There's just no way we're going to get one of those players unless they happen to force a trade to Chicago, and most likely they'd try to force it to New York or to some warm climate, as recent history has dictated. Duncan may be injury prone right now, but I don't think he'll ever get traded either.

The stars that would fit the most that might have some shot at getting traded are Pierce, KG, Bosh, and to a lesser extent Kobe. Kobe is very unlikely to get traded, as it looks like he and Phil are getting along well enough. Bosh is also unlikely to move, but he does continue to be lukewarm toward Toronto. I read an article a few days back about how he declined hosting a summer basketball camp in Toronto that was going to be used as a rallying point go get him to sign an extension with the Raps. It is possible he could be in play. I think if the Celts and TWolves don't make the playoffs, Ainge and McHale will be listening to offers this summer. Does it still make sense to acquire one of these two players, taking their ages into account, and the extensive amount of compensation it will require to complete a trade? I guess it depends on the deal.

There are lots of stars with good jib out there that Paxson would want, but are they available, how old are they, what are their contracts like, and is the price too rich?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I had mixed feelings when Paxson said on the radio this year that the team needs a star. For one, it assumed the team has no stars, which may have been slightly insulting to some of the young players on the team, who might develop into stars (though it looks less and less likely). But on the other hand, I totally agree with Paxson, and I am glad he realizes that you need a star. The question is how to find one that fits.
> 
> Young stars like LeBron, Wade, Okafor and Howard are totally untouchable. There's just no way we're going to get one of those players unless they happen to force a trade to Chicago, and most likely they'd try to force it to New York or to some warm climate, as recent history has dictated. Duncan may be injury prone right now, but I don't think he'll ever get traded either.
> 
> ...


I think you have to look at acquiring Dwyane Wade. Maybe in trade, maybe you wait it out and get him in free agency.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I think you have to look at acquiring Dwyane Wade. Maybe in trade, maybe you wait it out and get him in free agency.


This is about likely as a retirement strategy that revolved around hitting the power-ball.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> This is about likely as a retirement strategy that revolved around hitting the power-ball.


LOL nice defeatism. He's from Chicago and he has eventual UFA status looming in summer 2008. I think if it's as unlikely as you say it is, that that is a serious indictment of the BULLS.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I think you have to look at acquiring Dwyane Wade. Maybe in trade, maybe you wait it out and get him in free agency.


Can you imagine having a better young star on your team? He plays two positions. He's a high scoring, agressive offensive machine. He's a cat on defense. He's good with the media and seems exceptionally grounded and humble. He's known as a good teammate.

And how is Miami going to let him leave? 

They'd match anything offered to him in restricted free agency. He seems happy playing there, so it doesn't look like he's going to force a trade at this point. If for some reason he was going to force a trade back to Chicago, I'm sure Paxson would trade any players on his team for Wade. But that's a pipe dream if ever there was one. Wade, Howard, and James are to my eyes the most untouchable players in the league. Amare was on that list before his injury. We'll see if he gets back on the list when he returns.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

jimmy said:


> Although they really didn't have the money to make a legit offer, Paxson and Skiles made a run at Kobe Bryant a couple of years ago. I remember Kobe saying he was really impressed and listed Chicago as his 2nd option. Kobe's a superstar with some questionable jib.


Yeah, I remember hearing on the Mike and Mike Radio, that Pax and JR were at Kobe's house. I think Pax and Skiles will passup on people w/o jib, or questionable jib unless they are a top 10 talent. Artest, even if he was a top 5 talent would be passed up by several teams, b/c he is the NBA's TO.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Can you imagine having a better young star on your team? He plays two positions. He's a high scoring, agressive offensive machine. He's a cat on defense. He's good with the media and seems exceptionally grounded and humble. He's known as a good teammate.
> 
> And how is Miami going to let him leave?
> 
> They'd match anything offered to him in restricted free agency. He seems happy playing there, so it doesn't look like he's going to force a trade at this point. If for some reason he was going to force a trade back to Chicago, I'm sure Paxson would trade any players on his team for Wade. But that's a pipe dream if ever there was one. Wade, Howard, and James are to my eyes the most untouchable players in the league. Amare was on that list before his injury. We'll see if he gets back on the list when he returns.


I don't think it's such a lock. Stay for what? The complete rebuilding that that team is going to have to undergo either 2, 3 or 4 years from now?

You have a Chicago kid who could come home and be MJ2 who is a UFA in 2008 AND who MIGHT not want to stick around for a complete overhaul of the Heat. I think if it's impossible, that that pretty much sums up the attitude of this entire regime. If the Bulls can't be exactly where Wade wants to go, then all that MJ gained this franchise is truly lost.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I don't think it's such a lock. Stay for what? The complete rebuilding that that team is going to have to undergo either 2, 3 or 4 years from now?
> 
> You have a Chicago kid who could come home and be MJ2 who is a UFA in 2008 AND who MIGHT not want to stick around for a complete overhaul of the Heat. I think if it's impossible, that that pretty much sums up the attitude of this entire regime. If the Bulls can't be exactly where Wade wants to go, then all that MJ gained this franchise is truly lost.


See, when you're a healthy young Dwayne Wade, your franchise will never have to completely rebuild, because you're just that good.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DMD, I think that's one of the problems with the jib constraint Paxson placed on this team. The "star" players that are likely available for trade, are not always squeaky clean. 

This Knicks pick is likely our last chance for a while at acquiring a star, unless we get lucky in the middle area of the draft or Paxson can pull off a trade for KG or PP.

The troubling thing to me is that Paxson said he didn’t talk to anyone about the core.


As for Wade, yah, damn, he would look good on the Bulls. Pax had him pegged as well. Its just he didn't want to take the risk of going after what he wanted. The sad thing is that he didn't mind using Marshall to dump talent, but he was afraid to use Marshall to land the talent he wanted. Too risk averse.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> DMD, I think that's one of the problems with the jib constraint Paxson placed on this team. The "star" players that are likely available for trade, are not always squeaky clean.
> 
> This Knicks pick is likely our last chance for a while at acquiring a star, unless we get lucky in the middle area of the draft or Paxson can pull off a trade for KG or PP.
> 
> The troubling thing to me is that Paxson said he didn’t talk to anyone about the core.


K4E, I don't believe for a second that Paxson didn't talk about his core with Minnesota, Boston, and Toronto before the deadline. However, nothing went down, no specific offered deals were disclosed in the media, and Paxson can offer a little white lie, which is probably what he should do.

Seriously, think about it. How many GM's say things like "We were only fielding offers," vs. how many GM's say "our good players are available for the right deal." The numbers never add up. When GM's are "fielding offers," some other GM is calling them. 

I acutally read a Kiki quote after the deadline that said, "We weren't seriously looking to trade Kenyon Martin," or something like that. Do you think Kenyon believes that, with all the smoke out there? He knows, and I think I know too. GM's have to protect their players when they don't get traded, and I think they all know they have to say things that aren't in these situations.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> K4E, I don't believe for a second that Paxson didn't talk about his core with Minnesota, Boston, and Toronto before the deadline. However, nothing went down, no specific offered deals were disclosed in the media, and Paxson can offer a little white lie, which is probably what he should do.


I hope you are right.

If Paxson is not to be trusted at his public word, and making reasonable inferences is often labeled as "baseless, rank speculation," then its going to be really tough to talk about the Bulls around here! 

He better have gone after PP when he was on the market. But, I agree with other posters here when they say that he was likely off the market after the Wally trade.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> LOL nice defeatism. He's from Chicago and he has eventual UFA status looming in summer 2008. I think if it's as unlikely as you say it is, that that is a serious indictment of the BULLS.


LOL - you say defeatism, I say an touch of common sense. Hard to fathum if you don't have any.

And he will be UFA in 2007, right. Assuming he doesn't sign the MAX extension this summer. Which he will.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

This is so freaking hilarious.

Comparing our young guys to the Pistons, and saying that our guys aren't nearly as talented.

Look at their players when they were in their 2nd or 3rd seasons, and NONE of them really compare to where our guys are in their 2nd or 3rd seasons.

Billups in his 4th season (he only played in 13 games his 3rd season)
00-01 MIN 77g 33gs 23.2min .422fg .376-3's .842ft 2.1reb 3.4ast .66stl .14bld 1.44 to 9.3pts

Hinrich is WAY ahead of where Billups was at the same point of their careers.


Hamilton in his 2nd season
00-01 WAS 78g 42gs 32.3min .438fg .274-3's .868ft 3.1reb 2.9ast .96stl .13bl 2.58to 18.1pts

These numbers are almost identical to Ben's numbers this year.


Prince in his 2nd season 
03-04 DET 82g 80gs 32.9min .467fg .363-3's .766ft 4.8reb 2.3ast .77stl .84blk 1.45to 10.3pts

Looks a lot like Deng's numbers this season, don't they? Despite the fact that Tayshaun had 4 years of college experience to Deng's 1 year. Deng is FIVE years younger than Tayshaun


Ben Wallace in his 5th season:
00-01 DET 80g 80gs 34.5min .490fg .250-3's .336ft 13.2reb 1.5ast 1.34stl 2.33blk 1.46to 6.4pts

Better than Tyson's overall numbers, but it's not exactly a blow-out. And Ben was 4 years older than Tyson is now. 



Yet about 99% of these people who bash our players for not being at Piston-level yet are more than willing to wait for Edward Curry to continue to develop.

Why is it that Curry can still develop into an All-Star but all of our players have already reached their full potential and will not get one iota better throughout the rest of their careers?

Hypocricy at it's finest.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

One more thing...

What the hell was Pax supposed to say: "Well, I tried my damndest to trade Ben, but nobody offered me anything good for him"? That would be REAL good for morale, wouldn't it?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

bullsville said:


> This is so freaking hilarious.
> 
> Comparing our young guys to the Pistons, and saying that our guys aren't nearly as talented.
> 
> ...


I'd generally agree that holding these guys to the standard of the Pistons in their prime is kinda harsh. 



> Yet about 99% of these people who bash our players for not being at Piston-level yet are more than willing to wait for Edward Curry to continue to develop.
> 
> Why is it that Curry can still develop into an All-Star but all of our players have already reached their full potential and will not get one iota better throughout the rest of their careers?
> 
> Hypocricy at it's finest.


To this I'd simply say that Eddy Curry was 2 coaches votes away from making the All Star game last year at age 22. Who knows if he'll ever be an all star in his own rite. His value to me was only what this team was with him. And now I look at what they are without him. 

I thought what he was was fine last year. I realize that many have this obsession with players being "Complete players" or playing the "Right way." I have an obsession with being a balanced basketball team. However we get that balance is fine with me as long as we have it. We had total balance last year. 

But then, it's not just about Curry. I'd have been mad if Duhon, Deng, Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni or Chandler were traded off of a 47 win team for a guy that makes me say "Eddy Curry was never close to being THAT obese" and a draft pick.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Yeah, I know the tagline of the Pax-haters is "47 wins, 3rd-best team in the East with Eddy, 24-31 and 9th-best team in the East without him". And it's true.

BUT, we are also without AD and Griff now, and our defense is what is killing us this season. Our offense is markedly *better* than last season, it's lack of defense and veteran leadership that is killing us.

Yet, I have not once read "47 wins with AD, blah blah without him"- that seems odd. AD played more minutes on this team than Eddy did last season.

And people can laugh about Griff all they want, but he is apparently good enough to start and play 24.5 minutes for one of the 3 elite teams in the league.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Jesus are things really that bad? I remember a time when we would've been pleased at 24-31 after a bunch of seasons being the joke of the NBA. So many people here are so anti-Gordon, anti-Hinrich, etc., but why doesn't Gordon look like a star? If he took 25 shots a game like Kobe or Iverson he'd put up 20+ a game. There are some people on this board who undervalue our players and overrate the guys we got rid of in a vain attempt to portray a far gloomier picture of the Bulls than is true. Our starting lineup features 4 guys in the mid to early 20s. It's a shame they couldn't keep up the pace from last year, and losing an inside scorer could be it also.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> Jesus are things really that bad? I remember a time when we would've been pleased at 24-31 after a bunch of seasons being the joke of the NBA. So many people here are so anti-Gordon, anti-Hinrich, etc., but why doesn't Gordon look like a star? If he took 25 shots a game like Kobe or Iverson he'd put up 20+ a game. There are some people on this board who undervalue our players and overrate the guys we got rid of in a vain attempt to portray a far gloomier picture of the Bulls than is true. Our starting lineup features 4 guys in the mid to early 20s. It's a shame they couldn't keep up the pace from last year, and losing an inside scorer could be it also.


Yeah and what people constantly miss about comparing us to how bad we were in 2000 is that we didn't have 6 years of accumulated lotto talent in 2000. We should be better now, MUCH better. And saying "oh we're better than we were in 1999 or 2003" doesn't cut it for me. It's not like if you can be better than we were in 1999 you've accomplished something. Pax can be running a crappy ship and still be better than Krause. It IS possible.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Krause should have been fired. So should Paxson.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

i'm beginning to agree that Pax should be fired. But, he has two draft picks and cap space to work with this offseason. We'll see.

Oh yeah and I agree with the whole "death to jib" phrase. It started last year when Pax explained why he drafted Gordon and he said something along the lines of "he's a good player; we like the cut of his jib" or something like that.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know the tagline of the Pax-haters is "47 wins, 3rd-best team in the East with Eddy, 24-31 and 9th-best team in the East without him". And it's true.
> 
> BUT, we are also without AD and Griff now, and our defense is what is killing us this season. Our offense is markedly *better* than last season, it's lack of defense and veteran leadership that is killing us.
> 
> ...


I'm not discounting Davis at all. Nor have I ever. But Davis isn't really something that many Pax-lovers want to talk about, since his rearrival in Chicago only days after the trade was automatic. 

But the whole 47 win talk takes on greater significance when you're dealing with an ardant Pax supporter who predicted 47 wins THIS season, and wasn't hearing otherwise. And no I'm not just referring to you. You were FAR from the only one. It's hard not to call someone or a small faction of Paxson fans to the carpet when they weren't part of the larger group that knew we'd take a step back this year. What are you gonna say to Paxson fans who knew we'd take a step back this year? Nothing. I mean they're just being fans and hoping things work out in the longterm. Now maybe the value they assign to draft picks is EERILY similar to the value Krausefans used to assign to his picks, but oh well. On the other hand when someone denied that we'd fall off at all without Curry and Davis and played up Sweetney and called for high-40s in wins (again A LOT of people), it's hard not to question their value system. And not individually, but the value system of the greater group. 

For the record I like Jib. I think you need jib and talent. In the best world you get players who have both. However, that player who has both, even the lower tier players that have both like Manu Ginobili, are becoming harder and harder to come by. So I believe you look for balance by getting what you don't have. If you have a team with a ton of jib, you might look to take or retain a player like Eddy Curry who is low in jib and high in talent. Just like when you have a player like Crawford or Rose on the 04-05 Bulls, they may have to go in exchange for jib to get that balance, which we had last year. Believe me, nothing was ever that great about Eddy Curry. He just gave us balance. You could have taken a lot of guys off of our team last year and there goes the balance.

My beef with Paxson is that I believe in good faith that he writes players off too early if they don't have the jib he's looking for. I really believe that if you look at his body of work, he's predisposed to too far an extent to trading away or not drafting or not signing a certain type of player. And we may have so much jib in the bank on this team that that type of player could actually be what we need. But Paxson has this summer to turn me around. If he does well, I'll be convinced.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause should have been fired. So should Paxson.


YES! I'm not ready to call a riot on Paxson just yet, but I believe that his summer will show me that I am right about him. But I agree with your thinking. You can be BETTER THAN KRAUSE and yet STILL NOT VERY GOOD. They are not the only two GMs in the history of the NBA.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Jamilite, Eddylite, Paxolyte. I have a word for posters who use these names: lite-lites.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know the tagline of the Pax-haters is "47 wins, 3rd-best team in the East with Eddy, 24-31 and 9th-best team in the East without him". And it's true.
> 
> BUT, we are also without AD and Griff now, and our defense is what is killing us this season. Our offense is markedly *better* than last season, it's lack of defense and veteran leadership that is killing us.
> 
> ...


I agree, I think it's a mistake that all three of those guys aren't on this year's Bulls team!

Especially Griffin... there's really no excuse whatsoever for not bringing him back. Very low cost move with nothing but upside.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I agree, I think it's a mistake that all three of those guys aren't on this year's Bulls team!
> 
> Especially Griffin... there's really no excuse whatsoever for not bringing him back. Very low cost move with nothing but upside.


Yeah, we had the roster spot, and Griff would have played for the minimum... no excuse for that one IMHO.

Of course, if Pax wasn't looking to the future, he would have just led Eddy walk and keep AD this year, and we'd be better this year. But it looks like it is going to work out OK.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause should have been fired. So should Paxson.


Paxson should be fired based on what?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Paxson should be fired based on what?


Losing.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Losing.


What would be a reasonable time frame for a GM to be fired if he didn't have a winning record after having taken over a team that had lost miserably for five straight seasons?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Bulls are losing a lot less than they were before he took over, and are set to be in a position to win more as he continues to build. He took over a team running the worst 6 year record in league history, and everyone is crapping on him based on an inability to repeat a completely unexpected bubble of success in the second half of last season, even though the overall future health of the franchise remains solid, only partway through year year three of the monumental taks he faced in taking over as GM.

That sucks. Every GM in the league faces fans who sit as Monday morneing QBs, but he deserves more of a chance. Its not his fault JK dug an unprecedented hole he has to fill. And I still think he is not the clueless clown he gets branded as by the boo-birds.


----------



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

kukoc4ever said:


> Losing.


Then why did Krause get all those post Jordan years? Not only did they lose, they lost alot. 

At least Paxson has shown he has a vision of what type of team he wants. His drafts have been successful and so have his free agent signings. Nocioni, Darius and Allen have proven to be good moves at a good value. Althought the names have changed this upcoming offseason will be a 1st for Paxson, he doesn't have to deal with a player on the roster that Krause thought was worth the max.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> This is so freaking hilarious.
> 
> Comparing our young guys to the Pistons, and saying that our guys aren't nearly as talented.


Well, the hell of it is that they aren't nearly as talented, and comparing various years of one guy's career to another's doesn't do anything to change that. Just because Year 3 Chauncey Billups evolved into Current Year Chauncey Billups doesn't mean that Year 3 Kirk Hinrich is going to improve at the same rate. 

Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that all of the Pistons players went through their growing pains apart from one another. They weren't fighting for shots or for playing time or for contract dollars. They came to the Pistons at ideal moments and almost instantly coalesced into a finely tuned machine.



> Hypocricy at it's finest.


If you can't see or don't agree with this difference, fine. It's hardly hypocrisy, though, and that has nothing to do with Eddy Curry.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> p]Jamil[/b]ite, Eddylite, Paxolyte. I have a word for posters who use these names: lite-lites.


Who the heck is Jamil??


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Well, the hell of it is that they aren't nearly as talented, and comparing various years of one guy's career to another's doesn't do anything to change that. Just because Year 3 Chauncey Billups evolved into Current Year Chauncey Billups doesn't mean that Year 3 Kirk Hinrich is going to improve at the same rate.
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that all of the Pistons players went through their growing pains apart from one another. They weren't fighting for shots or for playing time or for contract dollars. They came to the Pistons at ideal moments and almost instantly coalesced into a finely tuned machine.
> 
> ...


 :clap: 

To me the only player on the team with this great ceiling that he's gonna have a chance to fill is Ben Gordon. Luol's ceiling is pretty nice too. But it's not like we have guys like Sheed, or Chauncey whose "talent is being held back because they won't let themselves be great." Kirk Hinrich gives everything he can, and you know what? While that is admirable, I don't see it ever growing to be the player that Chauncey Billups is. At this point I'd be happy to see him max out in Derek Harper territory. Tyson Chander is more Otis Thorpe to me than Ben Wallace. People can call Gordon whatever they want and I can't get Vinny Johnson and Danny Ainge to stop dancing around in my head. 

Conclusion: I see Ben Gordon playing for the Toronto Blue Jays before I see this cast eventually spawning a team that wins rings.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> And finally someone has said it. Thank you. Our core is not one who can win you a title. Our core are second (Gordon) or maybe third options on a championship team. More like 4th options. Some of our core dont even play on a championship team (Sweetney, maybe Songailia was like a 10th guy on those good Sac teams). Our core needs to be overhauled. I really think only Gordon starts on more then half the teams in the league. Deng, maybe, eventually certainly. Nocioni can play on any team but strictly off the bench. We dont have a core, thats the point. There is no length, athleticism or personality to this bunch. What we have are complimentary players and a coach who has gotten more out of them then most would have. Unfortunately the coach cant seem to get along with star players. Pip got it right, the core isnt that special. Anyone can see that. And why should we waste 4 or 5 years watching this thing grow (I mean, havent we spent 3 years seeing if Kirk can just break .400?) when the ceiling clearly isnt high? I mean, trade the entire core, minus Ben, to Toronto and get Bosh, clearly a player you can build around. Thats what I say. Does Pax have the ballz? I dont think so, but thats not entirely his fault since JR doesnt care enough to fire him. Pax knows it so why should we expect him to be creative or daring?


I don't think we consider Sweetney or Songalia as part of our core....

They are role players......

And if our core isn't anything special to build around, why would Toronto trade Bosh to use for some of our core....

I am all for moving our core for the right deal....don't get me wrong.... But bear in mind, it did take some time until Billups "got it." Hinrich might put it together (doesn't necessarily mean he will; I understand...)

Deng has only played for one and a half seasons....we cannot pass judgement on him yet; same with Nocioni.

The problem isn't that we have bad players to build around.... its that we don't know what we have nor who to build around (which is just as bad).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Well, the hell of it is that they aren't nearly as talented...


But that's a statement based completely on hindsight and the benefit of seeing the Detroit players develop into All-Stars. Yes, it's clear Chauncey Billups is a better basketball player than Kirk Hinrich at this point. However, evaluating the two at the same age and experience level, few would see Billups as having more potential or sheer talent.

Right now, the most relevant facts are that each of the Bulls players is farther ahead than their Detroit "counterpart" at the same stage. It's quite possible Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Chandler don't improve on their current ability level, but I don't think that's very likely.



> Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that all of the Pistons players went through their growing pains apart from one another.


I don't see the significance of your point. If anything, it's entirely arguable their progress was stunted until they were brought together.



> They weren't fighting for shots or for playing time or for contract dollars.


I'm not really sure what you're trying to imply here. Are you suggesting Hamilton and Billups were given free reign to shoot in Washington and Minnesota, the type of luxury not afforded to our young players? Or that Hamilton and Prince were already given contract extensions at that point?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Actually, I think the Pistons example is pretty instructive. Let's imagine something like this. Take any individual player off our team and swap him with his counterpart on the Pistons. Would they be better or worse for it. 

Take Chauncy Billups off the Pistons, put on Kirk Hinrich. Give Kirk a couple more years and I can probably see him doing what Billups does (at least if he's got the rest of the Pistons around him). I think the Pistons could win with him.

Rip Hamilton for Ben Gordon. No contest at the moment. Rip's a model of consistency and tireless movement on and off the ball. I'm not sure Ben will ever get to that level. He's very good, probably better when he's hot, but he's just so streaky. I think the Pistons would take a step back with Ben instead of Rip.

Prince for Deng. I think the Pistons would be about as good with Deng as they are with Prince. They'd have a bit more trouble defensively because Deng's not as quick as Prince, but I think they could account for it, and I think he brings a little more on offense. 

Sheed for... hell, let's say Al Harrington or Drew Gooden. Personally I don't think either of those guys could replace what Sheed brings the Pistons. He's a better defender than either of those guys by a wide margin (especially against bigs), a better post player, a better shooter, and a guy with a surprisingly good basketball IQ.

Ben Wallace for Tyson. Tyson's actually pretty close in terms of the kind of player Wallace is, but does anyone think the Pistons would be contending with Tyson? Maybe in a few years if things go well and Tyson develops the consistancy we hope for, the work ethic, and the strength. It's our hope, it's not a certainty.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> What would be a reasonable time frame for a GM to be fired if he didn't have a winning record after having taken over a team that had lost miserably for five straight seasons?


He inherited a team on the upswing, with some valuable assets.

Two of those assets were among our 3 best players on an actual winning team last year.

Five straight seasons has nothing to do with evaluating Paxson. Only the team he inherited matters. That's when the analysis starts. And Paxson liked the team he inherited enough to guarantee playoffs.

Going from 47 wins and 3rd best team in the east to several games under .500 and out of the playoffs is unacceptable.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mike, I think that's some pretty good analysis, and I clearly agree our core players aren't yet as good as the same four comparable players on the Pistons. But the comparisons aren't outlandish, and dismissing them, or claiming our players "aren't nearly as talented" is ridiculous, IMO.

Don’t know whether Hinrich has it in him to become a 19/9 low-end MVP candidate like Billups ‘06, but he can match the 17/6 and 16/6 that Billups put up the last two years. Judging Gordon and Hamilton, I would say Gordon has more talent and explosiveness as a scorer. Consistency and his height causing problems on defense are my main two worries there. Deng-Prince are a wash, imo. 

Finally, as you alluded to, Chandler's inconsistency and the lack of a Rasheed Wallace type make our frontcourt much weaker than Detroit’s. Hopefully, the lotto picks and cap space will help solve that problem.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Actually, I think the Pistons example is pretty instructive. Let's imagine something like this. Take any individual player off our team and swap him with his counterpart on the Pistons. Would they be better or worse for it.
> 
> Take Chauncy Billups off the Pistons, put on Kirk Hinrich. Give Kirk a couple more years and I can probably see him doing what Billups does (at least if he's got the rest of the Pistons around him). I think the Pistons could win with him.
> 
> ...


No one's arguing that we're not being molded in the image of the Pistons. I think that's pretty clear.

I'm just pointing out the relative uselessness of saying, "Okay, here's our core. Let's just carry everything forward five years and assume steady, equal improvement amongst all its members, and voila, we'll be as good as the Pistons!" It's relatively useless to say this because no past NBA champion has developed in this fashion -- non superstars kept together for X number of years until everything suddenly clicked.

Generally speaking, I think the burden of proof in this argument ought to fall upon the folks proposing that we'll be successful following the Pistons model, and that it doesn't make for a convincing argument simply to subjectively judge Player A's performance during a certain year of his career vs. Player B's. When so few championship-winning teams have followed the non-superstar Pistons model to begin with, and when there is such a demonstrable gap between our current players and the Pistons players, and when we're in a day and age where it's tough to keep just two or three key young guys together, nevermind four or five, the whole notion seems fairly far-fetched to me.

I don't necessarily disagree with your individual comparisons above (except for the Hinrich one), but again, the chances that all five of our guys stay together, grow without stepping on each other's toes, and have the Chairman shell out $250+ million for the pleasure . . . what are the odds?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> But that's a statement based completely on hindsight and the benefit of seeing the Detroit players develop into All-Stars. Yes, it's clear Chauncey Billups is a better basketball player than Kirk Hinrich at this point. However, evaluating the two at the same age and experience level, few would see Billups as having more potential or sheer talent.


I still think the comparison is subjective to the point of having little meaning. Billups did go third in the draft, remember. He obviously failed to live up to those expectations for a lot of his career, but it matters that the expectations were there to begin with.



> Right now, the most relevant facts are that each of the Bulls players is farther ahead than their Detroit "counterpart" at the same stage. It's quite possible Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Chandler don't improve on their current ability level, but I don't think that's very likely.


I'm sure Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Chandler will get better than they are. I'm positive of it. I am pretty certain, however, that all four will not simultaneously get good enough to win a championship. And to anticipate your rebuttal, adding non-franchise-level draft picks or free agents into the mix only makes it more complicated and less likely the core stays together (and I would have said the same thing about this model had Curry not been traded). 



> I don't see the significance of your point. If anything, it's entirely arguable their progress was stunted until they were brought together.





> I'm not really sure what you're trying to imply here. Are you suggesting Hamilton and Billups were given free reign to shoot in Washington and Minnesota, the type of luxury not afforded to our young players? Or that Hamilton and Prince were already given contract extensions at that point?


I'm saying it's important that Hamilton and Billups and Rasheed were basically given a chance to start over when Dumars acquired them. They all had varying amounts of baggage and learned some important lessons that came at the expense of their previous teams. I think the "clean slate" allowed them to achieve a very strong and exceedingly rare type of chemistry in short order.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No one's arguing that we're not being molded in the image of the Pistons. I think that's pretty clear.
> 
> I'm just pointing out the relative uselessness of saying, "Okay, here's our core. Let's just carry everything forward five years and assume steady, equal improvement amongst all its members, and voila, we'll be as good as the Pistons!" It's relatively useless to say this because no past NBA champion has developed in this fashion -- non superstars kept together for X number of years until everything suddenly clicked.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with most of what we're saying. Most importantly I think you're right about how much this team will change a lot.

If we need 5 guys of Pistons quality (even giving a couple more years of development), it seems to me that we've got 1 guy who could replace the comparable Piston for sure. Deng could replace Prince. I'd also argue that Prince is the least important and most replaceable of the Pistons' starters. We've got two guys (Kirk and Tyson) who could conceivably - maybe be equivalent to Billups and Big Ben. Then again, there's probably just as good a chance they don't. (I'd say more likely than not Kirk does and Tyson doesn't).

So what's that mean? That means we've got two out of five slots filled. That's means there's a long way to go... and that was even considering that we sign up one of the best available free agents (Harrington or Gooden).

We need our two picks, Gordon, and our free agent prize to turn into Rasheed Wallace, Rip Hamilton and maybe Ben Wallace. That's basically turning four assets into 2, maybe 3 really, really top notch assets. That's a very high hit rate with very little room for error if we're going to be successful.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

good discussion.

We're only holding ourselves back, IMO, if we try to be exactly like the Pistons. Same with what the Cavs and Lakers are doing--Odom as Kobe's Pippen, etc. It's not like we need one guy in each slot that we won't be satisfied with unless they're on the same level as their Detroit counterpart. Should they be used as a guideline? Sure. But let's not let that hold us back--let's not follow that too closely that it prohibits us from being a better team.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Again, this is the cartoon version of Pax' player philosophy that his detractors have sold.


Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's the forums that have made me think this way. There's really no evidence I can use to prove my point, but I just get the feeling that either he already has gone too far with it, or he will soon.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

At the time I created this topic, maybe I was just frustrated by last night's game, but for some reason my perspective on the situation seemed a lot more different at the time than it does now. Maybe it was these boards that influenced me to think that way, but for a time I really felt that Pax's philosophy was a lot worse than it was. I probably should have thought about it more beforehand, but hey, too late for that now.

But I am starting to think that, on second thought, what I originally said doesn't have as much merit as I thought. It's funny because I usually have supported his philosophy and have been a big advocator of the "give them time" philosophy.

I didn't intend the post to be completely anti-Paxson; I agree that we have won a lot more than we used to, and that just the fact we're disappointed about this season says a lot. I truly don't know what I was thinking at the time when I posted my original post, but it had a lot more to do with the general overrated status of jib more than Paxson's philosophy on anything else.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's the forums that have made me think this way. There's really no evidence I can use to prove my point, but I just get the feeling that either he already has gone too far with it, or he will soon.


How much money he throws Al Harrington's way will be a pretty good predictor. Harrington's a nice player with a nice jib, but he's not more than a starting quality talent. And that's at the 3. We're a team that needs a 4. If we give him too much money, it'll be buying jib instead of talent or fit.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He inherited a team on the upswing, with some valuable assets.


How was the team he inherited "on the upswing"? 



kukoc4ever said:


> Two of those assets were among our 3 best players on an actual winning team last year.


Well that's obviously subjective. But even if it is the case, 6 of the 8 best players last season (not to mention the coach) were his aquisitions so using your standard of GM accountability he's majoritively responsible for the Bulls success last season (unless you contend that Chandler and Curry were more valuable than the other 6 players and the coach combined).



kukoc4ever said:


> Five straight seasons has nothing to do with evaluating Paxson. Only the team he inherited matters. That's when the analysis starts. And Paxson liked the team he inherited enough to guarantee playoffs.


So you disagree with the notion that there can be bad habits and attitudes that are propagated by losing?



kukoc4ever said:


> Going from 47 wins and 3rd best team in the east to several games under .500 and out of the playoffs is unacceptable.


Why is it that you choose a season as your benchmark for evaluating a GMs performance? That seems very arbitrary and biased in favor of GMs mortaging the future for the present. If the Bulls had traded both picks, TT, Ben Gordon, Deng and Chandler for Shaq and got the 6th seed this season would you consider Paxson to be a successful GM?

Look, I'm not arguing that he's GMing icon. Missing an opportunity to draft Wade, devoiding this years team of 2 of its 3 legitimate bigman without finding even a stopgap replacement and to a smaller extent not resiging Griffin were all bad moves on his part. 

However I think, given the vast improvement of the team under Paxson and the promising future he's set the team up with, that it's proposterous to call for him to be fired.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Kirk Hinrich*, in his third season, is putting up better statistics _in every single category_ than *Chauncy Billups* did in any of his first _6 seasons_.

*Ben Gordon* is statistically very similar to _second year_ *Rip Hamilton*.

*Luol Deng* is already statistically similar to *Tayshun Prince*.

*Tyson Chandler's* first five seasons are remarkably similar to those of *Ben Wallace*.

We have no *Rasheed* equivalent right now, but that is not a matter "jib" so much as the fact that we have no PF yet. I'd be more than willing to go to battle with *Gooden* or *Al Harrington* and a *PF/C draft choice* in that position next season.

Clearly the Piston is a more experienced ball club than our current group, but anybody trying to make the claim that there is more _inherent_ talent on the Piston is just going to be wrong. The Piston, like the Bull, puts large stock in defense, depth, and team play. I have no doubt that a season or two puts us right up with the Piston.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> How was the team he inherited "on the upswing"?


Won more games than its previous season. Finished strong.




> Well that's obviously subjective. But even if it is the case, 6 of the 8 best players last season (not to mention the coach) were his aquisitions so using your standard of GM accountability he's majoritively responsible for the Bulls success last season (unless you contend that Chandler and Curry were more valuable than the other 6 players and the coach combined).


Chandler and Curry had the two of the top 3 EFFs and the two highest PERs.

This can be seen by this season. Under .500 without Curry. Clear difference in play once Chandler starting performing somewhat close to last season. Paxson inherited a couple of difference makers and surrounded them with jib players.




> So you disagree with the notion that there can be bad habits and attitudes that are propagated by losing?


No doubt. Paxson is a losing GM over 3 years. Time to consider letting him go.




> Why is it that you choose a season as your benchmark for evaluating a GMs performance? That seems very arbitrary and biased in favor of GMs mortaging the future for the present.


Feel free to look at his losing record over a 3 year span.




> Look, I'm not arguing that he's GMing icon. Missing an opportunity to draft Wade, devoiding this years team of 2 of its 3 legitimate bigman without finding even a stopgap replacement and to a smaller extent not resiging Griffin were all bad moves on his part.
> 
> However I think, given the vast improvement of the team under Paxson and the promising future he's set the team up with, that it's proposterous to call for him to be fired.


The only vast improvement we've had is the season where Curry and Chandler started living up to their promise and both produced. Paxson is partially responsible for this, putting a good environment in place, but net, he's a liability due to the jib constraint. 

He lucked his way into this Knicks pick, lets be honest. It was a nice deal considering he made it at the last minute, but hardly anyone felt the Knicks would be perhaps the worst team in all of basketball. Worked out aswell for the Bulls, even though they are worse off becuase of the trade. Let's hope we hit the lotto this summer and can get some of the talent back that Paxson squandered away.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Pistons Model is a pipe dream.

Its the perfect storm of several of the top 50 players in the league with the talent, chemistry and balance needed to be a dominant team. Good luck trying to recreate it.

It can also be used as false hope to those teams lacking a superstar.

Don't have a superstar player? Simple! We'll win using the Pistons Model!!!!!

Easier said than done.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Won more games than its previous season. Finished strong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love how all of the negative things that happen are Paxson's fault while all of the positives are merely lucked into despite his total ineptitude. That's fair.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I love how all of the negative things that happen are Paxson's fault while all of the positives are merely lucked into despite his total ineptitude. That's fair.


Just to clarify, I think Paxson did a good job getting something in return for Curry, given the corner he backed himself into. But, there is no doubt that the Knicks are performing poorer than most expected.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I love how all of the negative things that happen are Paxson's fault while all of the positives are merely lucked into despite his total ineptitude. That's fair.


Are you serious J? You're the man dude, come on, don't do this lol. Paxson was actually a victim of circumstances in the Curry deal, but whenever anything goes right, it's because he's John Paxson and he does it the "Right way."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Are you serious J? You're the man dude, come on, don't do this lol. Paxson was actually a victim of circumstances in the Curry deal, but whenever anything goes right, it's because he's John Paxson and he does it the "Right way."



I'm just pointing out that these things can be spun in whatever way people like. It seems to me people have pretty much made up their minds on whether they think Pax is the right guy to be the GM. Then, all the characterizations of his moves flow from this position. That's the reverse of what it should be. One should look at the decisions within the contexts in which they were made and decide whether when faced with those sets of facts, Pax has made good or bad decisions (or somewhere in between). 

For instance, I'm sure it is clear to all that I think Pax has done a good job. I am on record as being against the Curry trade. I think requiring the DNA test was a violation of Eddy's privacy rights and just too darn intrusive. However, I certainly understand the decision and think it was made in good faith and not with malice, which seems to be contrary to the opinions of a lot on this board. So, though I disagree, I do not think these things make him some big scary evil empire type of person. He did what he thought was right for the team and for Eddy. I can respect that. 

I also think this whole jib debate is a big, giant, stinking red herring. The idea that Pax is going to miss out on a plethora of all-star level players and cost us a championship because he is addicted to this concept of jib at the expense of winning is pure lunacy. I think it's clear from watching the league that there are plenty of talented guys who are not winners and should be avoided. It's laughable to me that Pax is derided for pointing this out. I think his performance with the draft so far has shown that he has an eye both for talent and for hard workers. That seems like a good thing to me.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> How much money he throws Al Harrington's way will be a pretty good predictor. Harrington's a nice player with a nice jib, but he's not more than a starting quality talent. And that's at the 3. We're a team that needs a 4. *If we give him too much money, it'll be buying jib instead of talent or fit.*


I don't see it that way. If anything, Al Harrington is the biggest "name" available in free agency who is most likely to switch teams. He is the best available talent, which is why I think we should consider signing him even though we're already solid at SF. I don't understand how signing him would be "proof" of Pax choosing jib over talent. Who else are we supposed to sign that is more talented? Nene? He's coming off a major knee injury, also consider the fact he's restricted. Same thing with Gooden, Wilcox, etc. Those guys are restricted. Harrington would be much easier to acquire because he's unrestricted, and he has already stated he would consider signing with us.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm just pointing out that these things can be spun in whatever way people like. It seems to me people have pretty much made up their minds on whether they think Pax is the right guy to be the GM. Then, all the characterizations of his moves flow from this position. That's the reverse of what it should be. One should look at the decisions within the contexts in which they were made and decide whether when faced with those sets of facts, Pax has made good or bad decisions (or somewhere in between).


I agree. However, I do hope you recognize that my stance has always been to be exactly against people taking this position. Many people on this board start with a set of values and everything flows from there. You are right. And what's even worse is defining by opposites. Go start a thread right now about how Paxson may not be the best GM in the league and I guarantee you'll get a few responses sarcastically saying that you must be saying he's worse than Krause and Thomas. My stance will always be to evaluate things individually. And I have written long posts analyzing Paxson move by move. My conclusion is that I'm not ready to call Paxson a bad GM just yet. I do want him fired, because I do already believe there must be someone better than him out there, and that it is the Bulls duty to find that person. But I'm not ready to call him a bad GM yet. He has one more big series of moves this summer that I believe will forever swing them pendulum. Now, do I expect him to make the wrong decisions based on the body of his work (which I'm happy to discuss in piecemeal fashion)? Yeah, I do. His most recent "well maybe that's not the type of guy we want" comment is troubling to say the least. 



> For instance, I'm sure it is clear to all that I think Pax has done a good job. I am on record as being against the Curry trade. I think requiring the DNA test was a violation of Eddy's privacy rights and just too darn intrusive. However, I certainly understand the decision and think it was made in good faith and not with malice, which seems to be contrary to the opinions of a lot on this board. So, though I disagree, I do not think these things make him some big scary evil empire type of person. He did what he thought was right for the team and for Eddy. I can respect that.


I just can't, because it's just that. I'm not looking to say Paxson is evil or malicious. A wrong decision is a wrong decision is a wrong decision. I felt like anything Paxson and Reinsdorf could come up with to preclude Eddy from remaining a Bull, they would. And anything Isiah could do to get the deal done, he would. Now I think Isiah is awful, and he had no business trading for Curry. He needs more players like Hinrich, Noce, etc. I just think Paxson was not proactive enough and that he could have made the deal happen. Well I really believe Reinsdorf probably had more to do with it not happening. But I can't prove who it was, so I'll settle for them both being gone.

My question for you is this J. You're a reasonable guy. You're a Paxson fan, but along with Ron Cey perhaps one of the most reasonable I know. WHAT will it take for you to say that Paxson made irreversible error in trading Curry? If we have another losing season? Two more? Two more and the Knicks pick becomes a total bust? Two more, Knicks pick, and we get tied to a bad contract this summer on a useless player? I just want to know what a reasonable threshold is. 



> I also think this whole jib debate is a big, giant, stinking red herring. The idea that Pax is going to miss out on a plethora of all-star level players and cost us a championship because he is addicted to this concept of jib at the expense of winning is pure lunacy. I think it's clear from watching the league that there are plenty of talented guys who are not winners and should be avoided. It's laughable to me that Pax is derided for pointing this out. I think his performance with the draft so far has shown that he has an eye both for talent and for hard workers. That seems like a good thing to me.


I don't think I should be imparted with that viewpoint. I have never said that Paxson will intentionally forego winning and all stars to get his type of guys. I just believe that there is a minimum acceptable level of jib for a player to be successful with a well run team. THEN I believe that somewhere up the scale is PAXSON's minimum jib level, and that he will right a guy who COULD be a contributor off too early in the process if he doesn't have the level of jib Paxson requires. So say that you had a scale of 1-100. Here is what it would look like:

0 jib 

Eddie Robinson

30 jib

Rasheed Wallace
Dennis Rodman (1996)

60 jib

Our whole team

100 jib

So what I'm saying is that there is an area between say 30 and 60 that has some players that could help you win, and have the minimum acceptable jib, but who Paxson would write off too early in the process for not having HIS minimum acceptable jib. For example, if Paxson truly looked at Andre Iguodala three times, I have no F-ing clue how he didn't draft him. I believe due to Lute Olson comments and due to Andre never being part of the college butt kissing fraternity (i.e. never being deified or "Redick"ified), Iguodala may have been about a 55 on the jib scale in Paxson's eyes. If not, I'd really love a better theory as to why he wasn't drafted over Ben Gordon. AND I was saying that then, as one of my reincarnation handles was "Iguoballa" before he ever played his first NBA game. 

So no, anyone who takes it THAT far and says that Paxson is going to avoid all star guys or winners because he wants a team with guys who have 100 jib scores and 0 talent scores is WAY off base. 

But I look at guys like a Rasheed Wallace in Detroit and I wonder if Paxson would have ever even considered the move that Joe Dumars made.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> I agree. However, I do hope you recognize that my stance has always been to be exactly against people taking this position. Many people on this board start with a set of values and everything flows from there. You are right. And what's even worse is defining by opposites. Go start a thread right now about how Paxson may not be the best GM in the league and I guarantee you'll get a few responses sarcastically saying that you must be saying he's worse than Krause and Thomas. My stance will always be to evaluate things individually. And I have written long posts analyzing Paxson move by move. My conclusion is that I'm not ready to call Paxson a bad GM just yet. I do want him fired, because I do already believe there must be someone better than him out there, and that it is the Bulls duty to find that person. But I'm not ready to call him a bad GM yet. He has one more big series of moves this summer that I believe will forever swing them pendulum. Now, do I expect him to make the wrong decisions based on the body of his work (which I'm happy to discuss in piecemeal fashion)? Yeah, I do. His most recent "well maybe that's not the type of guy we want" comment is troubling to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"His minimum acceptable jib". So are you implying Paxson has a jib counter in his office. It seems this jib thing really is getting out of control. And if you think Andre Iguodala is going to be a better player than Ben Gordon, you need to wake up and smell the mocha, sir. I realize you hate this Bulls incarnation, but Gordon is a beast, plain and simple.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> My question for you is this J. You're a reasonable guy. You're a Paxson fan, but along with Ron Cey perhaps one of the most reasonable I know. WHAT will it take for you to say that Paxson made irreversible error in trading Curry? If we have another losing season? Two more? Two more and the Knicks pick becomes a total bust? Two more, Knicks pick, and we get tied to a bad contract this summer on a useless player? I just want to know what a reasonable threshold is.



I think we should be a winning team next year. If we are not, I wouldn't be too broken up by Pax's dismissal. If there was another losing season after that, I would be calling for his head.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think we should be a winning team next year. If we are not, I wouldn't be too broken up by Pax's dismissal. If there was another losing season after that, I would be calling for his head.


As expected, very fair.


----------



## MynameisTyree (Dec 4, 2007)

I'll bump this one too...


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

jimmy said:


> I think you need to give Paxson a couple more years before you make that kind of conclusion. I mean, how are Rose, Crawford, Curry, and Marshall doing?
> 
> This summer will be huge for him, that's for sure.


Your kidding right?pax has had 5 years and the best the team has done is 2 and out.

The whole "This summer will be huge" ship sailed 2 years ago,and to some extent the past summer.this summer the BEST pax can hope for is that a team just looses its mind and gives up the farm for one of deng or BG in a Sign&Trade.but that never happens so that has less then 5% chance of happening..

The worse thing that can happen and has at least a 40% chance of happening is Deng&BG both take the QO in which case pax should be fired on the spot no if,ands or buts about that..

You guys need to wake up and see all the things pax had to work with over the past 3-4 years vs what he made out of them.everything he had was far greater then bos gave for KG and Ray COMBINED yet this team is all pax has to show for it..

He has no big expiring contracts outside of Big Ben in the next 4 years
He has no high Draft picks(unless they tank)
He has no Young Studs that the team could live without
He has no up coming cap space 
and i believe everyone that has a chance of being something outside of TT and noah have all reached their peak.

Then to top all of that off,they wont go over the LTax..so he really has played around with his assets until they have run out,leaving him having painted himself into a very dark corner in terms of what he can do with the team going forward WITHOUT having to dip into the main set of players to improve.. 

The last chance Pax really had to right this ship and get us over the hump was before the start of the season with Kobe (baring a Gasol,Kobe,Wade,LBJ type just out right asking to be traded and then holding out from playing)and he blew up.at this years deadline even if the team plays .500 or above ball,the best he could ask for our players would be $.80 on the dollar and Pax just wont take that.

Face it,baring some type of meltdown by another team,what we have + a few mid-late rounders and some MLE type guys is all that we will have for the next 5-10 years,yet somehow you guys think Pax is such a dam good GM..at least in Boston after they are done winning some rings the way we should have went about it,they will have 3 HUGE expiring contracts to trade and grab some young studs in 3-4 years..


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

RageofDaBulls said:


> Your kidding right?pax has had 5 years and the best the team has done is 2 and out.
> 
> The whole "This summer will be huge" ship sailed 2 years ago,and to some extent the past summer.this summer the BEST pax can hope for is that a team just looses its mind and gives up the farm for one of deng or BG in a Sign&Trade.but that never happens so that has less then 5% chance of happening..
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that that post was made February of last year - he was talking about the summer of '06...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

RageofDaBulls said:


> and i believe everyone that has a chance of being something outside of TT and noah have all reached their peak.


I'm not quite sure why this keeps getting said over and over. It got said over and over last year too. Have Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Bynum now reached their peaks as well?

Name - Years of experience (age)
Hinrich - 4 (26)
Gordon - 3 (24)
Deng - 3 (22)
Nocioni - 3 (28)
Duhon - 3 (25)
Thomas - 1 (21)
Thabo - 1 (23)
TOTAL - 18 seasons

Ben Wallace - 11 (33)
Joe Smith - 12 (32)
TOTAL 23 seasons

Wallace and Smith have more experience between the two of them than all of our other rotation guys combined.

Just because someone starts to play worse than they have previously does not mean they have peaked. It just means their accelerated rate of change _COULD_ be slowing.

Really, Nocioni is about the only guy you can make a case that he is/has peaked (obviously Wallace and Smith have as well).


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not quite sure why this keeps getting said over and over. It got said over and over last year too. Have Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Bynum now reached their peaks as well?
> 
> Years of experience
> Hinrich - 4
> ...


Your looking at it a bit different then i do.3-4 years in the league and a player is still making the same mistakes he did from day one and overall playing about the same way,yet i should believe that somehow someway down the road these kids are going to flip some switch and go lights out?

Maybe we are getting some wires crossed here or something,but fans should be looking for their team to win rings and their young players to become great not just to be happy with draft after draft to end up with role players that think they are superstars and for the team to drop out at the start of the playoffs year after year..

How many guys have just gone lights out and went from role player types to superstars in year 4-5 or beyond???im sure there has been a few in the history of the nba but most on this board believe that we have at least 3 of those guys on this team right now just waiting to bust out and that Pax is doing the right thing by keeping them..but i ask what if you and him are wrong?the odds say that you are,but you keep posting how good so and so are yet i fail to see it on the court..

Call me fair weathered or whatever,but im to the point that i have stopped watching the trash they call games,and when i hear that they have once again lost i relish in it because i know that at some point during all of this losing that the media and fans will put enough pressure on JR and/or Pax that something will have to be done.i dream of that day,and i can feel it pulling closer with each loss..


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> Keep in mind that that post was made February of last year - he was talking about the summer of '06...


Humm,,well you'll have to forgive me because i thought this was up to date stuff..kinda funny how one might be confused by that huh?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

RageofDaBulls said:


> Your looking at it a bit different then i do.3-4 years in the league and a player is still making the same mistakes he did from day one and overall playing about the same way,yet i should believe that somehow someway down the road these kids are going to flip some switch and go lights out?
> 
> Maybe we are getting some wires crossed here or something,but fans should be looking for their team to win rings and their young players to become great not just to be happy with draft after draft to end up with role players that think they are superstars and for the team to drop out at the start of the playoffs year after year..
> 
> How many guys have just gone lights out and went from role player types to superstars in year 4-5 or beyond???im sure there has been a few in the history of the nba but most on this board believe that we have at least 3 of those guys on this team right now just waiting to bust out and that Pax is doing the right thing by keeping them..but i ask what if you and him are wrong?the odds say that you are,but you keep posting how good so and so are yet i fail to see it on the court..


First off, I don't think this is a team of budding superstars just waiting to take off until they turn into a dynasty. I realize we are in the era of video games and fantasy basketball where you can make 3 trades per week if you don't like what your current team is giving you. What hypothetical deal would you have done that the Bulls did not get done.

Gasol - Deng, Gordon, and the pick (which had a slight chance at landing a player better than Gasol--Oden/Durant)
Garnett - Not financially possible given JR's constraints even if you want to use the resigned PJ Brown argument. Minnesota's GM even stated that he was only dealing with Boston post trade.
Kobe - Deng, Gordon, Noc, and Thomas would have gotten it done. Would you? Would Kobe have accepted?

Hinrich's rookie year, I thought he could be something like a 22ppg scorer and dropping 8 dimes. I still think he could become that, but not at the style in which he approaches the game (he doesn't look to finish after a drive and doesn't look to try and draw FTs). He still could do it (and still think he has the potential), but he seems more happy being the team facilitator rather than the offensive weapon. Whenever he goes on attack mode, it's usually only to shake free for an 18-20 foot jumper. He usually can get that shot (until this year) and that's good, but he isn't really looking to score for himself. I think that makes him play more passively, and that's bad.

Everyone else (besides maybe Thabo) have improved each year. Gordon and Deng have gotten steadily better each season since they've been in the league until this year, and there is a lot of season left despite the poor start (Gordon got off to a really bad start to last season too and turned it around to have a really good numbers year).



> Call me fair weathered or whatever,but im to the point that i have stopped watching the trash they call games,and when i hear that they have once again lost i relish in it because i know that at some point during all of this losing that the media and fans will put enough pressure on JR and/or Pax that something will have to be done.i dream of that day,and i can feel it pulling closer with each loss..


I'm not sure I would call it fair weather. I guess I don't understand the rooting against your team phenomenon. I understand it at the end of the season if you have nothing to play for and you want to improve your draft status or give some developing guys more time, but literally taking pleasure out of your team's failures?

How do you both root for and root against something at the same time? Isn't this like telling your kids (hypothetial or otherwise) that they just can't do something no matter how hard they try? Why assume failure?

Were you taking pleasure in them losing last season too? Or was the loss to Detroit so crippling that you could never have faith in this team again. We have almost the same squad as one year ago, and most of the new faces are assumedly better than the ones that left.


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure I would call it fair weather. I guess I don't understand the rooting against your team phenomenon. I understand it at the end of the season if you have nothing to play for and you want to improve your draft status or give some developing guys more time, but literally taking pleasure out of your team's failures?
> 
> How do you both root for and root against something at the same time? Isn't this like telling your kids (hypothetial or otherwise) that they just can't do something no matter how hard they try? Why assume failure?
> 
> Were you taking pleasure in them losing last season too? Or was the loss to Detroit so crippling that you could never have faith in this team again. We have almost the same squad as one year ago, and most of the new faces are assumedly better than the ones that left.


Why do i have to explain this each and every time i say it?i think i said it best below,and if you still cant understand it then its not my fault.. 


Call me fair weathered or whatever,but im to the point that i have stopped watching the trash they call games,and when i hear that they have once again lost i relish in it because i know that at some point during all of this losing that the media and fans will put enough pressure on JR and/or Pax that something will have to be done.i dream of that day,and i can feel it pulling closer with each loss..


----------

