# All-Star call for dismemberment of the FirePax Club..



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

The insanity must end. Take down your wall, DaBullz, and join us.

:upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dismembering 30+ people? I'm not sure the punishment fits the crime.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

:laugh: 

I'm certainly not itching to fire Pax anytime soon. Maybe I should pm him and tell him to take me off...or he can read this and take me off. I guess the Skiles one, too, though I'm still for an eventual replacement there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

When ScottMay says he wants to quit the clubs, I'll remove them from my signature.

The signature may be mine, but the clubs belong to those who joined it.

EDIT: BealeFarange removed from fire pax club.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Dismembering 30+ people? I'm not sure the punishment fits the crime.


Yeah the punishment is far too weak, let's get us 4 horses and do it right. :devil: 

It sure would be funny for Paxson and Skiles to take league honors for Exec and Coach of the Year and have half our posters still calling for their ouster. "Winning the right way" was laughed at win Paxson and Skiles echoed those statements last season, I guess we see who's is laughing now. 

Kinda of topic. During last night's Raptors telecast, one of the announcers pondered if the Bulls were better w/ Nocioni than Eddie Robinson, they both laughed. lol


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> When ScottMay says he wants to quit the clubs, I'll remove them from my signature.
> 
> The signature may be mine, but the clubs belong to those who joined it.


As I've said before, I'll ask to be removed from the "Fire Paxson!" club and I'll disband my own "Sell the Bulls!" club only when Curry and Chandler are re-signed. 

I know that's a little unfair to Pax, and that given the looming labor negotiations, it might not be resolved for a long time, but that's how it has to be. Those two are integral to our success this year and to any bigger successes we'll have down the road -- this isn't anything like the Crawford scenario.

As for Skiles, I'm hesitant to EVER ask to be removed from his club. But if the Bulls make the playoffs, I'll do the right thing and opt out.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

I kind of enjoy looking at the guys in the Fire Pax and Skiles Fan Clubs now that things are looking up. Oddly enough, a good amount of those guys are no longer around. In the words of Dan Jiggets and C&C Music Factory, "Things That Make you Go Hmmmmmm".


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Maybe you could just modify the names of the clubs to something more suitable right now. I don't know, maybe...

The "I'm not quite convinced Paxson is a good GM yet, but at least he has put a nice team together this year" Club

and...

The "I really don't like Skiles but he seems to be doing a decent job getting his players to play to their potential" Club

:yes:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

those are all great guys. They should be firemen they answered the bell so quick. j/k
We all make mistakes of course LOL. _ALL_.

anyways.....Did Pax and Skiles even unpack all their boxes B4 they were supposed to be ousted??  

its called the instant gratification society. Its a microwave world people. But all good things come to those who wait. I didn't expect anything to happen this season, but i expected things would happen eventually, like beginning next season.

the right thing to do, would have been to take a wait and see attitude, even if you weren't a believer


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> anyways.....Did Pax and Skiles even unpack all their boxes B4 they were supposed to be ousted??


That's been the basis of my PaxSkiles supporting arguments all along! People were calling for Skiles' head before he had even had a single training camp with his team. Pax found himself stuck in a somewhat messy contract situation that took some patience and the right moves to fix up. They couldn't turn the corner overnight.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

^^^^ very true


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Here's an idea.

Anyone who belongs to the Fire Paxson / Fire Skiles club should have some sort of identifying mark -- an asterisk, a clover leaf, something -- appended to their screen name. That way, even if the clubs are one day disbanded, there'll be no doubt as to who dared to question the coaching and management of a 0-9 / 2-13 / 4-15 / etc. team coming off the worst six-year record in the history of the NBA. 

Just a thought.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> When ScottMay says he wants to quit the clubs, I'll remove them from my signature.


Wow. Considering the history here... I find this quote quite ironic.  :shy: :grinning:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> I kind of enjoy looking at the guys in the Fire Pax and Skiles Fan Clubs now that things are looking up. Oddly enough, a good amount of those guys are no longer around. In the words of Dan Jiggets and C&C Music Factory, "Things That Make you Go Hmmmmmm".


I'd never actually looked at the membership until this post, but it's interesting to note that at least three members of the "angry little men" club are still posting, but under assumed identities.



Maybe *DaBullz!* should update his membership list with their new usernames?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Here's an idea.
> 
> Anyone who belongs to the Fire Paxson / Fire Skiles club should have some sort of identifying mark -- an asterisk, a clover leaf, something -- appended to their screen name. That way, even if the clubs are one day disbanded, there'll be no doubt as to who dared to question the coaching and management of a 0-9 / 2-13 / 4-15 / etc. team coming off the worst six-year record in the history of the NBA.
> ...


I expected a little better than 0-9 to start this season, but if you search hard enough, you'll find a barrage of old quotes before the season started where I said this team would be slow out of the gates, and would hit stride come January. How did I know this? Because it was obvious from day 1 that this team is talented as hell...but with so many rookies and players unfamiliar with each other (coupled w/ a brutal schedule in November/December), you couldn't expect too much right away. I was called delusional and a Kool-aid drinker too many times to count...and people ignored me when I insisted that my arguments were rational. All I have to say is, dang it feels good to be right.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd never actually looked at the membership until this post, but it's interesting to note that at least three members of the "angry little men" club are still posting, but under assumed identities.
> ...


you know Wynn, its all good whatever people want to say. But changing your user name because of this is just.....whats a good word for lower than wormy


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> The insanity must end. Take down your wall, DaBullz, and join us.
> 
> :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset:


you do realize that you are #27 on the FIRE SKILES club? or is this just about the PAX list?

those that joined these brigades did so of their *own free will*. dabullz didn't make 'em do it, ya know? like he says, the "clubs" belong to those who joined them. 

just a thought.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: All-Star call for dismemberment of the FirePax Club..*



> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> you do realize that you are #27 on the FIRE SKILES club? or is this just about the PAX list?
> ...


That's why he should take my suggestion...keep the clubs, but modify the names of them.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Here's an idea.
> 
> Anyone who belongs to the Fire Paxson / Fire Skiles club should have some sort of identifying mark -- an asterisk, a clover leaf, something -- appended to their screen name. That way, even if the clubs are one day disbanded, there'll be no doubt as to who dared to question the coaching and management of a 0-9 / 2-13 / 4-15 / etc. team coming off the worst six-year record in the history of the NBA.
> ...


lol...thats when i joined the FireSkiles club...0-9.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> As for Skiles, I'm hesitant to EVER ask to be removed from his club. But if the Bulls make the playoffs, I'll do the right thing and opt out.


Gotta hurt to hear opposing broadcast crews one after another praising Skiles then, right?  

Seriously though, opting out for playoffs seems fair enough, but how can you not like what you've seen so far? Lots of idiocy here in the last year right down to accusing the guy of not knowing an X from an O. Insane. Guy is regularly praised, players to a man believe in him and the proof is in the W's. I think one could debate whether Scott will go the way of Doug Collins (it was even brought up in last weeks radio chat), but I don't think there should be any debate that the guy is a good head coach.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I understand ScottMay's position, but my quibble is that it's a very "guilty until proven innocent" attitude to take. Pax turned this team around in about 1/5 the time Krause had, he has the team on pretty good financial footing going forward as far as cap flexibility to add to the core and key players being under rookie deals for a while, and we are in position to make a run at the playoffs if we stay healthy and catch a break or two. 

Doesn't the guy deserve even the slightest benefit of the doubt? Do you REALLY want to fire him now because you're concerned he won't re-up Curry and Chandler? Who's to say a GM who isn't Paxson (since, wanting to fire him doesn't guarantee that his replacement will be Jerry West or anything) would handle the situation any better? Not only that, but Pax's recent comments have indicated that he has absolutely no intention of letting these guys slip away - and since Pax is sometimes honest to a fault with the media, I tend to believe him when he says that.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

Well I asked with a thread of my own a long time ago to be removed. But I still see my name there for one of the clubs.

Much as some of you want to pat yourselves on the back. I don't think anyone can say that they saw this coming, it looked pretty bleak at 0 - 9.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Gotta hurt to hear opposing broadcast crews one after another praising Skiles then, right?
> ...


I don't mind broadcasters praising Skiles when praise is due. The same broadcasters were dinging Skiles left and right when the team played poorly.

My biggest problem with Skiles is the Collins angle you mention. There is a shelf life to his approach, especially as the stakes (presumably) get higher. Now, maybe this Bulls team is as special as the 60s-70s Knicks, and like Red Holzman, Skiles will oversee the team from its rebirth to its ultimate goal. More likely, though, is that as Deng and Gordon and Hinrich become seasoned veterans and assured of their own abilities, they'll tune out Skiles the same way Pippen and Grant tuned out Collins. 

I also think Skiles deserves a lot of the blame for our poor start. If our team is as good as everyone thinks it is (and they're probably right), why were we the league's worst team in November and December? And the Xs and Os criticism is extremely valid, imo, when you see how Curry, Chandler, and Deng are used on offense. Skiles's gameplans are guard-oriented to a ridiculous extreme.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I understand ScottMay's position, but my quibble is that it's a very "guilty until proven innocent" attitude to take. Pax turned this team around in about 1/5 the time Krause had, he has the team on pretty good financial footing going forward as far as cap flexibility to add to the core and key players being under rookie deals for a while, and we are in position to make a run at the playoffs if we stay healthy and catch a break or two.
> 
> Doesn't the guy deserve even the slightest benefit of the doubt? Do you REALLY want to fire him now because you're concerned he won't re-up Curry and Chandler? Who's to say a GM who isn't Paxson (since, wanting to fire him doesn't guarantee that his replacement will be Jerry West or anything) would handle the situation any better? Not only that, but Pax's recent comments have indicated that he has absolutely no intention of letting these guys slip away - and since Pax is sometimes honest to a fault with the media, I tend to believe him when he says that.


After some pretty bad hiccups in his rookie year, Paxson has done a terrific job. I have given the guy credit -- on at least two occasions I've said the 2004 draft stands a good chance of eclipsing Krause's draft in 1987 (the jury's still out on 2001). I am pretty sure Curry and Chandler are in his long-term plans. But if those two aren't brought back, no matter who makes the decision, then we're basically starting all over again.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i'm far from being the Xs and Os expert Scott, but the Bulls offense gets a lot of praise by alot of knowledgable NBA profesionals

and his approach? Thats the stereotype. AD poked holes in that stereotype already. You don't fool guys like AD


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Much as some of you want to pat yourselves on the back. I don't think anyone can say that they saw this coming, it looked pretty bleak at 0 - 9.


yodurk pretty much saw this coming. I feel I've been pretty far on the optimistic side of things the past several months, but even I thought he was a little loopy on the Kool-Aid when we were 0-9, 2-13, etc. and he kept saying the team would turn it around beginning in late December. I started getting the feeling that Skiles wasn't getting through to them around this point and was starting to wonder if we did need to find a coach who could. 

Did I see THIS coming? Heck no. Did I think Pax had assembled some good pieces, gotten rid of some dead weight, and put the team in a position to get better at a respectable clip? Yes, I did. I thought this team would improve markedly as the season went on, end up with around 30-35 wins, and take a big step next year into low-rung playoff contention. And at THAT point, we stood to have a little cap space to use on a piece to take us another step. But the fact that Pax's plan worked even faster than I, or even he, thought it would, is a credit to the people he's put into place and the commitment they've all made. Some of the "skeptics" have tried to use this rapid improvement as proof that Pax just stumbled into a gold mine and that he had nothing to do with it, and I think that's utter baloney.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> In the words of Dan Jiggets and C&C Music Factory, "Things That Make you Go Hmmmmmm".


Damn you stretched way back for that one. :laugh:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> After some pretty bad hiccups in his rookie year, Paxson has done a terrific job. I have given the guy credit -- on at least two occasions I've said the 2004 draft stands a good chance of eclipsing Krause's draft in 1987 (the jury's still out on 2001). I am pretty sure Curry and Chandler are in his long-term plans. But if those two aren't brought back, no matter who makes the decision, then we're basically starting all over again.


I think I'm just being needlessly ornery here, but your membership in a FIRE PAXSON club suggests that, if you were in charge, you'd fire him today so that he doesn't get the chance to make a mistake later on. That's what I find puzzling.

If Curry and Chandler are given up for nothing, or if they are S&T'ed away for something utterly inadequate, I'll be incensed too. But I don't want to fire Pax NOW to avoid that fate, because the way that he's turned this team around so quickly gives me faith that he'll do the right thing.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd never actually looked at the membership until this post, but it's interesting to note that at least three members of the "angry little men" club are still posting, but under assumed identities.
> ...


DaBullz could you please change the C.C.C.P name in the club to such sweet thunder. I'm still a proud member and any alusion that I changed my name because I was embarassed of my positions is beyond foolish. 

I seriously can't believe this thread is even happening. What is wrong you people? Come on Vicious, "guilty until proven innocent?" You are calling us out because we dared to question coaching and management after seven years of futility? I'm proud of the fact that I said enough was enough and demanded results. I view the club as a sign of switching my attitude towards the team, and demaning more then a sycophant, panting dog.

Edit: and by the way , can I join your club. i do so like pie.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on Vicious, "guilty until proven innocent?" You are calling us out because we dared to question coaching and management after seven years of futility? I'm proud of the fact that I said enough was enough and demanded results.


I was referring to ScottMay's reasoning for staying the club, which was that he won't ask to be removed until after the Curry and Chandler contract situations are settled. I do think that smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" because he's basically saying, intrinsically anyway, that he'd fire Pax now for making a mistake he hasn't made yet (and probably won't, I might add).

Do you still want to fire Paxson? That's the question here. That you joined the club in the first place is understandable, even if I personally feel it was a rush to judgment. But now? We're 26-23 after winning 23 games all of last year, and you want to fire the GM? Where was the Fire Krause club when he was compiling one of the worst 5 year records in pro sports? Why did Pax get less than a year before he was put on the spit, and why does our recent success not absolve him of this fate?

Those are the issues at hand. Not your reason for joining in the first place. You said yourself that you wanted results. Well, you're getting them, so do you still want to fire Paxson?

edit in response to your edit: Of course. There's no cap on the I Like Pie club. I'll even waive the $5000 entrance fee because I like the cut of you gib.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

ahhhh, yet Pax had hope. Theres nothing wrong with being wrong. The part that got excesive, was the barrage of negativity. It was heavy gunfire. True it was way too much to expect things to turnaround this season....... The problem was with totally throwing Pax and Skiles under the bus already. They just started. They were aiming for next season anyways.

Pax said...... "2 Years"
and people wanted to kill him. Literally it felt like. countless posts aday of really powerful trashing. Excesive

I doubt those who had hope for Paxsons 2 year plan would be getting on you guys (i'm not either BTW ) for being wrong about him, or simply disagreeing....................They are getting their backs up about the overwhelming global thermonuclear assault. It was way too much

*everyone who is surprised they got called out is missing the point. I was pretty POed at the way people on this board were pistol whipping everyone about Pax and Skiles as well. Its NOT the questioning of Pax and Skiles. It was the TACTICS. HOw you went about it. You guys went overboard*

Now i don't like the calling out stuff either. But you are missing the point as to why he's calling you guys out


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Well I asked with a thread of my own a long time ago to be removed. But I still see my name there for one of the clubs.
> 
> Much as some of you want to pat yourselves on the back. I don't think anyone can say that they saw this coming, it looked pretty bleak at 0 - 9.


You've been removed. However, don't blame me if I don't notice such a request in a post in some thread. PM to me is the sure way to be added or removed.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

for the record, the only one I intended to "call out" was ScottMay, and that was just a quibble with his reasoning for staying in the Fire Pax club. ScottMay has been very forthcoming about how pleased he is with the way the team is playing and he's given credit to all deserving parties. That, actually, is the reason why I had to inquire about why, if he's so pleasantly surprised, he still wants to fire the GM who helped put this together. 

I've called out k4e in the Crawford thread a few times, and I occasionally mix it up with DaBullz when I don't feel like he's giving people a fair shake, but I try to localize my discussions with certain posters and not make broad generalizations too much. (I'm sure I've done it a few times without realizing it though)

I do agree with fleet that there was a certain tone to the board that if you dared show any optimism about the team, you risked being shouted down as a Kool-aid junkie who was blinded by your fandom. But that was mostly just the mood of a Chicago Bulls board that was seeing its team fall to 0-9. Perfectly understandable. I think this retribution thing might be going to far at this point. It's just a message board, after all, and we're all fans of the Bulls - the best fans, in fact, because we all stuck it out and stayed loyal through a long period of futility.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

"In all my years of judging 
I have never heard before of 
Some one more deserving 
The full penalty of law 
The way you made them suffer 
Your exquisite wife and mother 
Fills me with an urge to defecate 
But my friend you have revealed your deepest fear 
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers 
TEAR DOWN THE WALL"
































(but leave the clubs until the voice of Scott May sayeth it is time.)


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I was referring to ScottMay's reasoning for staying the club, which was that he won't ask to be removed until after the Curry and Chandler contract situations are settled. I do think that smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" because he's basically saying, intrinsically anyway, that he'd fire Pax now for making a mistake he hasn't made yet (and probably won't, I might add).
> ...


Please don't mind the tone of my last post -- I slept in this morning and am feeling a little rambunctious. No, of course Paxson and Skiles have my confidence for now. But, I still think its important to keep the attitude we as a community had finally developed at the beginning of this season.

Part of the reason this team has done well this year is the emergence of Curry. Paxson told him enough was enough, and he came in to camp at weight. I wonder if Paxson would have taken this same position if he was completely comfortable with his position. I'm not advocating becoming the Knicks -- a franchise that struggles to escape mediocrity because they have to live in the now -- but, a little pressure never hurt anyone.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> for the record, the only one I intended to "call out" was ScottMay, and that was just a quibble with his reasoning for staying in the Fire Pax club. ScottMay has been very forthcoming about how pleased he is with the way the team is playing and he's given credit to all deserving parties. That, actually, is the reason why I had to inquire about why, if he's so pleasantly surprised, he still wants to fire the GM who helped put this together.
> 
> I've called out k4e in the Crawford thread a few times, and I occasionally mix it up with DaBullz when I don't feel like he's giving people a fair shake, but I try to localize my discussions with certain posters and not make broad generalizations too much. (I'm sure I've done it a few times without realizing it though)
> ...


The mood was equally negative towards those who had a realisitic view of the team. Heck, it's still pretty negative towards some people today.

On draft night, I suggested I get rid of the clubs. I was asked NOT to by several posters, so I didn't.

There are basically two reasons why I haven't taken it down:
1) I was asked not to by some members
2) I feel that ScottMay has been consistent and right all along in his view, he started the "season is a wash" thread when it really was a wash (and even I was optimistic and argued with him in it at the time).

My own feeling is that I do not like skiles and I do not like paxson. For many reasons that many have expanded upon. The reasons especially include the way he's treated PEOPLE, like Corie Blount's release.

I'm torn between wanting my Bulls to succeed and wanting skiles and paxson to not succeed. I do NOT root against the Bulls; I'm THRILLED they're winning.

I do believe in playing the GM/Coaching/Winning game to win, but I also believe in some sort of morality that says you don't stomp on people to crawl your way to the top.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You've been removed. However, don't blame me if I don't notice such a request in a post in some thread. PM to me is the sure way to be added or removed.


Don't get me wrong I wasn't blaming you. I was just stating it for the record. 

I'll give yodurk credit I remember thinking that he was nuts. Talking about strength of schedule, etc... etc..

I think at the time, I belive out the 20 games posted.. I thought they would only win... 3 games. 

I can admit it I was wrong.. but I like being this kind of wrong. I believe what we all wanted was the Bulls to show progress and get better.

Feels good to be part of the NBA again.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> ahhhh, yet Pax had hope. Theres nothing wrong with being wrong. The part that got excesive, was the barrage of negativity. It was heavy gunfire. True it was way too much to expect things to turnaround this season....... The problem was with totally throwing Pax and Skiles under the bus already. They just started. They were aiming for next season anyways.
> 
> Pax said...... "2 Years"
> ...


I'm not missing the point. A lot of people want to extract a pound of flesh from the "haters." Great.

A lot of these same people were the ones who complained that all the negativity was going to drive people off the boards and ruin them forever, yet here they are engaging in a very similar, albeit far more personalized, form of negative behavior, even going to the extent of accusing those who were unhappy with the Bulls of having sad, unfulfilled, uncontented lives.

That's not going overboard?

You know, in the darkest hours of this tragicomedy, we'd often wonder aloud to each other, "What in the hell are we going to talk about if the Bulls if they ever get good again?" 

This is the best we can do?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind the tone of my post -- I slept in this morning and am feeling a little rambunctious. No, of course Paxson and Skiles have my confidence for now. But, I still think its important to keep the attitude we as a community had finally developed at the beginning of this season.
> ...


Fair enough. I think I'm just nitpicking at this point, but the names of the clubs are "FIRE Paxson/FIRE Skiles"...not "hold Pax and Skiles accountable". Yes, they should be held accountable. At this point, there's no way either of them should be fired, hence my need to rail against the clubs. It was my opinion that Pax deserved more than a few months to prove his mettle as a GM (I don't remember when these clubs started, but it was in the middle of last season), and that Skiles deserved an offseason and part of this season - or, at least a full season. And, lo and behold, they're doing pretty well now. I think asking for their heads before they really had a fair chance to make their marks on the team was unfair, especially given how long Krause and Floyd got (Cartwright didn't get THAT long, but he did get 2 training camps and almost 2 full seasons). That's really the extent of it. If your membership in the clubs is to signify that you demand accountability of management, so be it. It's just an extreme display IMO.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I do NOT root against the Bulls; I'm THRILLED they're winning.


Irrelevant -- apparently there is a "right way" to be a fan, as well.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm torn between wanting my Bulls to succeed and wanting skiles and paxson to not succeed. I do NOT root against the Bulls; I'm THRILLED they're winning.


you want the bulls to succeed and pax and skiles to fail?



:sigh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> you want the bulls to succeed and pax and skiles to fail?
> ...


Exactly.

I like the players, each and every one of them. I like the players we USED to have, too, and follow them, as a fan should.

So the ideal situation for me would be for us to have a GM and coach that I would want to root for as well.

EDIT:
I was equally harsh vs. Krause, who I never liked.

I also have stuck with all the Chicago teams as my favorites, particularly the Cubs and Bulls, through all the winning and all the losing. 

As a fan should.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I want to wait and see what Paxson does with Curry and Chandler this offseason before I give him the free pass.

If we make the playoffs and then Pax lets Curry or Chandler, walk without any compensation, then I'll be pissed.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not missing the point. A lot of people want to extract a pound of flesh from the "haters." Great.
> ...


solid. 
and that personal stuff was out of bounds. Maybe he had a bad day?

for my own part, if i was to think of usernames I considered quote unquote haters, you weren't on it. I'm pretty sure there were a whole bunch of people who disagreed with how the team was being handled that weren't extremist. 

Believe this part, the Bulls have accomplished zip so far in reality. The howdyalikemenow stuff could blow up in some faces yet. Its all like in the psychology of why people are puttting their opinions out there. To change minds because we are control freaks? :yes:

we surely are all drama queens no matter where you fall on the Pax/Skiles theater of the absurd :allhail:


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

If you are on the "Fire Paxson" club, you are not using your head. Period.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The mood was equally negative towards those who had a realisitic view of the team. Heck, it's still pretty negative towards some people today.


I guess this just depends on your perspective. I don't remember guys like yodurk and Ron Cey being heavily critical or dismissive of the people who were pessimistic, but since I was in agreeement with them moreso, maybe I just have a selective memory. Point conceded. EDIT: but part of the point here is that the people who maintained some amount of faith in the team were ALSO being realistic, _as the team's surge shows_, and the fact that they were dismissed as loons to some extent is the reason they/we are kind of ticked off.



> On draft night, I suggested I get rid of the clubs. I was asked NOT to by several posters, so I didn't.
> 
> There are basically two reasons why I haven't taken it down:
> 1) I was asked not to by some members
> 2) I feel that ScottMay has been consistent and right all along in his view, he started the "season is a wash" thread when it really was a wash (and even I was optimistic and argued with him in it at the time).


It's your sig. You can have a Bin Laden for President club there if you want. I personally am not asking for its dissolution, but I am questioning WHY people continue to be members, even when they are in agreement that this team is on the right track.



> My own feeling is that I do not like skiles and I do not like paxson. For many reasons that many have expanded upon. The reasons especially include the way he's treated PEOPLE, like Corie Blount's release.


Corie Blount's release is pretty much the biggest complaint I have about Paxson's tenure as GM. Bad move - not sure if it was intentional, but it was low. What else has he done that is so bad, on a "people" level? He demanded accountability of a guy like ERob - does that make him a bad person? Seriously, I'm at a loss as to how Pax and Skiles have mistreated anyone who deserved a fair shake, other than just being honest.



> I'm torn between wanting my Bulls to succeed and wanting skiles and paxson to not succeed. I do NOT root against the Bulls; I'm THRILLED they're winning.


So, when I've insinuated that you have an agenda on several occasions recently, I've basically been right? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but it must be hard knowing that every Bulls win adds to each man's job security. I'm glad I don't have such animosity towards the architects of this team - I'd be pulling my hair out. I know you want the Bulls to win, I just sometimes feel like you take MORE pleasure in finding reasons to rip on Pax and Skiles. You came very close to admitting just that right now.



> I do believe in playing the GM/Coaching/Winning game to win, but I also believe in some sort of morality that says you don't stomp on people to crawl your way to the top.


evidence that Pax and Skiles have done anything of the sort would be nice. I don't know of anyone, save Blount and maybe Jamal, who has a bad word to say about Pax or Skiles. Jason Kidd's childish vendetta doesn't count. They are almost universally well-respected.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Much as some of you want to pat yourselves on the back. I don't think anyone can say that they saw this coming, it looked pretty bleak at 0 - 9.


I wish search was working, because *I* did predict it. I was jumping all over the place saying they weren't as bad a team as they looked.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> So the ideal situation for me would be for us to have a GM and coach that I would want to root for as well.


Why don't you want to root for them?

Edit:

Found your reasons. 

All I can say is...water under the bridge. 

Should we boo-hoo because Rose and Crawford were traded to losing teams too?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

R there people who still seriously think Pax should be fired??????


As I see it , it only remains as a joke/Myth.

Why should Pax (or Skiles) be fired with the progress we're showing , the progress we hav'nt shown for 6!!! years??


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I think I'm just nitpicking at this point, but the names of the clubs are "FIRE Paxson/FIRE Skiles"...not "hold Pax and Skiles accountable". Yes, they should be held accountable. At this point, there's no way either of them should be fired, hence my need to rail against the clubs. It was my opinion that Pax deserved more than a few months to prove his mettle as a GM (I don't remember when these clubs started, but it was in the middle of last season), and that Skiles deserved an offseason and part of this season - or, at least a full season. And, lo and behold, they're doing pretty well now. I think asking for their heads before they really had a fair chance to make their marks on the team was unfair, especially given how long Krause and Floyd got (Cartwright didn't get THAT long, but he did get 2 training camps and almost 2 full seasons). That's really the extent of it. If your membership in the clubs is to signify that you demand accountability of management, so be it. It's just an extreme display IMO.


Everybody had there own reasons for joining the clubs. For me, it was the last twenty games of the past year when Skiles benched our team for the CBAers. He seemed to bring no energy from the bench, and I felt like he had given up. I've argued symantics with posters on this question but I believe the Bulls were in effect throwing games. 

I joined the Pax club shorly there after because he did nothing as GM to intervene. Perhaps there was a connection between playing the scrubs and losing games leading to this year but, I still don't see it. Truth be told, I'm still angry as a fan at what happened at the end of last season. It's like being used in a relationship . 

As far as overreacting. I'm glad everytime someone from the franchise logged on these boards they had to look at the club and see how many of the die-hards [though not all] felt about the way the team played out the end of the season. I think it was an important message that was getting lost in the solid but diminishing ticket sales and apathetic masses at the games.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> 
> 
> Everybody had there own reasons for joining the clubs. For me, it was the last twenty games of the past year when Skiles benched our team for the CBAers. He seemed to bring no energy from the bench, and I felt like he had given up. I've argued symantics with posters on this question but I believe the Bulls were in effect throwing games.
> ...


good post. I think I've said my piece on the issue. I'll even let DaBullz get the last word in on me (but don't expect that to become a habit  ). I disagree with you on the way the season played out last year (we wouldn't have won many, if any, more games with ERobbery playing or whatever, that's basically my argument), but those issues have been put to rest, so there's no need to dredge that stuff up again. I understand now that the Clubs mean different things to different people, while I'm taking them at face value. Fair enough, I'll let it go.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I think I'm just being needlessly ornery here, but your membership in a FIRE PAXSON club suggests that, if you were in charge, you'd fire him today so that he doesn't get the chance to make a mistake later on. That's what I find puzzling.
> ...


This is the way I see the clubs as well.

It's kind of like insurance you know? If this team implodes all of a sudden, the members of the club can say. "see? I was there. I knew it all along and I was a charter member of this fanclub. How foolish of me to even think of leaving the club. You suckers." etc.... There's no harm in staying with the club but there is much more "reward" in bragging rights if one remains.

I think it is braver to remove oneself from the clubs.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> This is the way I see the clubs as well.
> ...


nice explanation. and you could even take it a step further in that Pax and Skiles will not be GM and coach of this team for all eternity. Chances are, at least one of them, some day, will get fired - heck Phil Jackson just got fired, kinda. So, the likelihood is that one or both of those clubs will prove prophetic, even if it's not for 5 years or something.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I'm about ready to leave this thread behind. Just not feeling as rambunctious anymore. Anyways, I think we're all ready to kiss and make up, or at the very least admire each other's jib-cuts. As only one confident straight man can say of another confident straight man's jib-cut. 

Spongy:

The only problem with your theory is that, are we really _that_ concerned with being right? I hope I am flexible enough to realize when my take is wrong and to readjust. It's not like any of us are actually keeping score. 

I'm trying to figure out why I like ScottMay's idea of waiting until the Bulls resign Ty and Eddy to disband the club so much. I think it's because I still don't trust Pappa Reinsdorf. I wan't to keep the legacy of how bad things got alive, when it's time for him to anti-up and sign on the dotted line.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm torn between wanting my Bulls to succeed and wanting skiles and paxson to not succeed.


That pretty much says all I need to know about you. Bravo to you for wanting the coach and GM of the team you root for to fail. 

At least you have the balls to say it, which I suppose on some very insignificant level I respect.

As an aside, I don't think you should ever take down your signature unless every single person listed asks to be removed. I love seeing a reminder of your ineptness - and the ineptness of others - at evaluating the rebuilding of a basketball team each time I read your posts. 

Its kind of like a warning label that accompanies a potentially harmful product.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I'm trying to figure out why I like ScottMay's idea of waiting until the Bulls resign Ty and Eddy to disband the club so much. I think it's because I still don't trust Pappa Reinsdorf.


Which has nothing to do with Paxson or Skiles.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> I'm about ready to leave this thread behind. Just not feeling as rambunctious anymore. Anyways, I think we're all ready to kiss and make up, or at the very least admire each other's jib-cuts. As only one confident straight man can say of another confident straight man's jib-cut.
> 
> Spongy:
> ...


I can't say all are like that. The criteria or the antifanclub's membership rules weren't stated. Everyone joined for different reasons, whether it was his coaching style, or blaming him for the record but does Fire Skiles mean "I want to fire Skiles right now" or what's it supposed to mean?

Disbanding it, however, doesn't mean we can't hold him accountable. Just because we are winning doesn't mean we can't question him (even though there's is less ammunition to fire at him). How about a "We better sign Chandler and Curry, *or else!* club"

Now for the other extreme. Those guys who wanted to see Skiles go, even if that means the Bulls lose, well that's just weak. The people who relish the losing so they can sulk and whine with other guys, well they aren't fans at all, now are they?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Interesting thread.

I don't agree with the overall tone of "calling people out", but I can definatly understand it. Things were so bad here in november and early december that if anyone even so much as hinted that Pax and/or Skiles were doing decent jobs or that they should be given more time, you'd have thought it was suggested to bring back the KKK or proclaim Adolf Hitler a humanitarian. I severely curtailed my posting because I just got tired of being accused of being a lemming or not being capable of an original thought. I had/have a particular philosophy that happened to coincide with giving this team and those who assembled it more time and leeway. Perish the thought. There sure was a lot of chest thumping and high-fiving of the contingent who thought/thinks this team was terrible and needed to be completely blown up at the time. An eye for an eye... What's good for the goose... what goes around... karma....

As for the whole disbanding of the Fire Pax and Skiles club - who cares???!!?? It's DaBullz club and those that joined it can either continue to be in it or ask to be taken out. It really is their business. Hell, for those who seem hell-bent on hanging membership in these clubs over others heads, let them stay in it and be counted. If ScottMay wants to wait until Papa Reinsdorf antes up this summer - so be it. I really think his beef is with Reinsdorf (and rightfully so) and not necessarily Pax and Skiles, but that's his business.

I just think folks really should try to lay off labeling others; such as being a "pax lover/hater" or a "Jamal lover/hater" or whatever other cliques are prevalent here. Personally, I'd like to think I'm a fairly objective fan. I don't hate to hate and I don't gush to gush.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Hey, I'm no quitter.

I didn't quit rooting for the Suck a Bulls the past few horrendous seasons, I won't quit damn it....oh wait.....LOL

Hey, I agree that Paxson and Skiles have pulled this squad together. But if you didn't question this, I have some swamp land in Florida you should look at purchasing.....

For me to remove my name, I feel Paxson must resign Curry and Chandler, figure out whether Duhon is worth the cost he may command and how to get us a tall SG to play with Kirk & ben. I also would love to see him get a back up Big man.


Remove my name then or when we make the playoffs (see, I can compromise and let people out of MY doghouse unlike....wait, I'll stop the negative vibe)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> That pretty much says all I need to know about you. Bravo to you for wanting the coach and GM of the team you root for to fail.
> ...


The feeling is mutual about your ineptness. Get it?

Insults don't win you any "points"


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The feeling is mutual about your ineptness. Get it?
> ...


But I was right. Na-na-na-boo-boo.

Don't ever change. A request I'm sure you will comply with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I think I'm just being needlessly ornery here, but your membership in a FIRE PAXSON club suggests that, if you were in charge, you'd fire him today so that he doesn't get the chance to make a mistake later on. That's what I find puzzling.


Well, as a former member, I tried to look at it from a perspective of what I'd be asking as an owner. One typically doesn't get a "performance review" with one's boss when he/she is a general manager, but let's imagine I (the owner) sat down with Paxson around the end of last year.

Questions I'd have (these are all circa the end of last year):

1. John, it's clear now that you and Coach Cartwright didn't see eye to eye philosophically even from the start. We had the opportunity to get you squared away from the beginning and go in the direction you wanted to go in, but we spent a summer and a disasterous beginning of the season trying to compromise your vision and his. Why did you do that?

2. John, this somewhat flows from the first question, but relates to the team and its personnel. 

John, I'm not a one-foot in and one-foot out kind of guy; it appears clear to me that you had your doubts but decided not to rock the boat when, in fact, you had the best opportunity you were going to get to come in and set the tone.

You looked at the team when you took over and essentially gave its composition your blessing. Privately you may have had doubts. Did you, and if so, why didn't you begin shaping things up from the get go? Or, if you didn't have any doubts that the team was headed in the right direction then, diagnose how and why you were mistaken and what steps you've taken to prevent it from happening again? 

(b) Also, please explain the signing of Scottie Pippen within this context. 

3. John, I realize I hired you with no front office experience, but I expect my executives to know the the rules of their jobs thoroughly. When you cut Corie Blount, you later explained that you either didn't understand or know the importance of the March 1 waiver deadline. How can I trust you as the manager of my endeavor when you miss simple rules like this? What steps are you taking to ensure this doesn't happen again.

4. John, I realize Skiles was "your guy", but would it really have hurt to interview a few other legitimate candidates? Given his history, which includes a lot of hard feelings, bouts with alcoholism and allegations of cocaine use, are you sure he's the right guy to deal with the stress of this job? Is he really that much better of a coach that we didn't need to talk to anyone else and needed to take this chance?

5. John, I understand your desire to rid ourselves of several players who didn't fit the direction you wanted the team to go. That being said, the short-run, end of the season here was a wash. You know as well as me that several of the guys we played a lot wouldn't be back. Given that we would have no longer-run benefit from playing guys like Ronald Dupree, would we have been better off trying to play up the value of guys like Eddie Robinson and Marcus Fizer? And why not try to get something in return for guys like Fizer? Even if it's only guys who are off the radar like Keyon Dooling and Bobby Simmons, wouldn't that at least let us take a look at some guys who might be here, rather than guys we are already pretty sure won't be?

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

Those would have been questions I put to Paxson, and I think the answers probably merited his firing. 

Looking at his good moves back then (Kirk) and since then (Ben, Lou, Duhon, Noc, no panicking), they probably merit his keeping.

AFAICS, those two things don't need to be mutually exclusive. A strike out at point A doesn't mean you can't go out and hit a home run at point B.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, as a former member, I tried to look at it from a perspective of what I'd be asking as an owner. One typically doesn't get a "performance review" with one's boss when he/she is a general manager, but let's imagine I (the owner) sat down with Paxson around the end of last year.
> ...


Good, thought-provoking post. However, I see #5 as being inconsistent with #1 and # 2. In 1 and 2 you criticize Paxson for not believing enough in his instincts and following them fearlessly. In #5, when Paxson allowed (maybe encouraged) Skiles to play work ethic over talent, thus setting the tone for what would and would not fly on the new Bulls, we criticize him for being firmly commited to doing things his way. 

I see that as whip-sawing. Unfair.

Otherwise, great post.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 1. John, it's clear now that you and Coach Cartwright didn't see eye to eye philosophically even from the start. We had the opportunity to get you squared away from the beginning and go in the direction you wanted to go in, but we spent a summer and a disasterous beginning of the season trying to compromise your vision and his. Why did you do that?
> 
> ...


Question you might ask today:

6. John, do you think we can get past the fact that I prematurely and inaccurately doubted you before giving you an adequate chance to take the necessary steps to build this team to match your vision? I wouldn't want to lose a rising star like you to another team.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I'm not trying to call out a poster, but im curious about what has happened to rLucas? Has he left BB.net? Is he hiding? Banned?

He was the biggest critic of Skiles and Paxson..Especially Skiles, calling him a racist. It seems to me that he stopped posting as soon as the Bulls started winning.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Those would have been questions I put to Paxson, and I think the answers probably merited his firing.
> 
> Looking at his good moves back then (Kirk) and since then (Ben, Lou, Duhon, Noc, no panicking), they probably merit his keeping.
> 
> AFAICS, those two things don't need to be mutually exclusive. A strike out at point A doesn't mean you can't go out and hit a home run at point B..


Post of the day.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> -----------------------------------
> 
> Those would have been questions I put to Paxson, and I think the answers probably merited his firing.
> ...


Interesting stuff, Mike. Thanks for the input. I imagine you read through the rest of the thread and noticed that I came to understand that many people in the club don't consider it to be as literal as I do, and I'm cool with that.

your questions are good ones, but whether Pax's answers would merit a firing would certainly depend on who was listening. He'd say all the things he's been saying - work ethic, commitment to defense, accountability, team before me, etc and probably say that sometimes it's necessary to take a step back or sideways in order to take a step forward. For some, that would make perfect sense. For others it would sound like excuse-making. (I think we've already established who is on which side of that debate).

and once more for posterity, I understand completely why people joined the club in the first place - I mean geez, we really sucked there for a while. I just thought it was an unfair rush to judgment personally. I have never meant to make these debates personal, so if anyone thinks I have, I apologize. These topics are just easy to get worked up about, I guess. I've found it interesting to see why people are STILL in the clubs, despite acknowledging the good things that have taken place.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Question you might ask today:
> ...


How is it premature to ask such questions after a full year of work? 

rlucas hasn't posted in a while, but he removed himself from Fire Paxson after the draft because he concluded that Paxson has collected talent.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> 
> 
> How is it premature to ask such questions after a full year of work?
> ...


I was trying to be funny, admittedly not one of my strong suits. 

Every employee should be questioned about progress at the end of a year's work. But some of those questions of Mike's over the top and he concluded by saying that at the time those issues "probably merited his firing", which they clearly did not. 

This is my point.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> 
> 
> How is it premature to ask such questions after a full year of work?
> ...


Why I got this feeling that Gipper is reincarnation of rluas? I don't know.

For that matter anybody recently encounter Arenas809 who is still active on Knick and Cliffers board? He has one sickening avatar which sums up what he thought about Bulls. Go check yourselves.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> He has one sickening avatar which sums up what he thought about Bulls. Go check yourselves.


I actually think his avatar is hilarious. It perfectly sums up what he thought of the team, minus ERob of course. :laugh: I honestly don't think I agreed with the guy once, but he knew basketball as well as most.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The Gipper is not RLucas.

But what was Ron Cey's handle on RealGM?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> The Gipper is not RLucas.


Where is RLucas?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)




----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I'm disgusted with all of you, joining clubs to fire Skiles and Paxson. As you can see I never joined.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Good, thought-provoking post. However, I see #5 as being inconsistent with #1 and # 2. In 1 and 2 you criticize Paxson for not believing enough in his instincts and following them fearlessly. In #5, when Paxson allowed (maybe encouraged) Skiles to play work ethic over talent, thus setting the tone for what would and would not fly on the new Bulls, we criticize him for being firmly commited to doing things his way.
> ...


Thanks. I see your point on number 5, but I wasn't intending it in the sort of way you interpreted it. You're right, playing those guys just to raise their value probably wouldn't have been consistent with Pax's values. At least, not in the "we have to play the right way or else" sense. But, I think playing up those guys' value would be consistent with "following his instincts" in another sense; it would get them in a movable position sooner rather than later.

Let me try to reformulate the question. John, I agree with your goal of getting rid of the guys who don't have what you're looking for and getting guys in here who have the attitude you want. Consistent with that goal, wouldn't it be better to play those guys so we could get them out of here quicker, rather than let them languish on the bench, upset? As the season dragged along, they were a continuing source of controversy and it was clear we didn't want them back. Given that, why wait so long to cut our losses on them?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I was trying to be funny, admittedly not one of my strong suits.


Funny?  

Also, how anyone could think rlucas is TheGipper is beyond me. Wow. I miss rlucas-- he was really knowledgeable and I enjoyed his opinions. 



> I think this is a lot of fuzzy incomplete history. In the world of business every CEO can look back and tick off 6 or 7 decisions that he'd like to have back...especially ones hired to serve as turn-around specialists.


In basketball, each and every personel decision is *huge*. It's not like baseball or football, where you have more players and you can gamble a bit. Perhaps the clubs were slightly kneejerk, but Paxson's decisions before this season looked undeniably shaky. 

If we had an owner who deeply cared about basketball, I'm not sure that he would still have his job. 



> For that matter anybody recently encounter Arenas809 who is still active on Knick and Cliffers board? He has one sickening avatar which sums up what he thought about Bulls. Go check yourselves.


I think his avatar is funny as (h)well. I wish he wasn't banned from this board, because I wonder what he would say in threads like these. I always found it strange and humorous that he was so negative towards the Bulls organization, yet so optimistic about the Clippers, which is quite possibly the worst organization ever. It seemed hypocritical to me.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Wow, some of you take this way too seriously.

For those of you "brave souls" who withstood us hooligans who wanted Skiles and Paxson fired, start your own "Don't fire Paxson or Skiles" clubs and take a stand.

I know I put on my resume I'm a member of the fire pax and skiles clubs.

This is all about fun and conversing with fellow fans of your favorite team. We all ahve opinions and get tired of hearing the fan inside scream out...so we post on message boards like these.

I love the hipocrasy.......Fire Pax and Skiles...they have made no mistakes...yes they have and they admit that. "Anyone in the fire clubs is exposed as a bad person or non-knowledgeable"....get over yourselves.

Threads like this I would normally avoid, but being a mod I read them and shake my head. 


Be passionate, but not disrespectful. We are all Bulls fans here.

I love that Pax and Skiles have been right and I've been wrong. I want my team to win. 

Go Bulls.....


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, Mike. Thanks for the input. I imagine you read through the rest of the thread and noticed that I came to understand that many people in the club don't consider it to be as literal as I do, and I'm cool with that.
> ...


Actually, I don't think he would answer that way, and I'd be extremely disappointed if he did. Remember what's going on in this situation- the boss is asking specific questions about specific things (LOL, yeah, I know it's hypothetical  ). Those are kind of general talking points and guideposts, but I think my questions were about particular things that happened.

I mean, if it's Pax talking to his boss (a year into the job!) it's a bit late to rely on the "commitment to winning" line. It's a given at that point. What's important is a detailed and honest assessment of what he was thinking, what he thought worked, and what he thought didn't work.

I think you're right though that all the difference in the world depends on the answers. To me that doesn't mean Paxson had to accept responsibility and say each one of these things were mistakes in every case. What is important, though, is that he can think through the pros and cons of his moves and explain whether he'd do them again and why.

For instance, if his private response to the Corie Blount fiasco was, "Boy, I ****ed up, and I've stayed up late the last month boning up on the league rules so I don't make another mistake", then that's the kind of thing you forgive. If his private response was "What are you giving me **** for, boss, it's only Corie Blount?", then it's evidence to me that he's not "getting it".

Similarly, you look at his approach to Cartwright- the question for the future is "would you do things differently, and why?" There are plenty of "no" answers I think I could stomach there, and several "yes" answers I couldn't.

In general, I want to see a guy take the hard criticisms head on and respond thoughtfully to them, not with sound bites. My thoughts are that there's enough there to fire him, but there's room there in how he answers to save him too.



> and once more for posterity, I understand completely why people joined the club in the first place - I mean geez, we really sucked there for a while. I just thought it was an unfair rush to judgment personally. I have never meant to make these debates personal, so if anyone thinks I have, I apologize. These topics are just easy to get worked up about, I guess. I've found it interesting to see why people are STILL in the clubs, despite acknowledging the good things that have taken place.


Likewise on the making things personal issue.

I guess what I was trying to get at was some specific questions about specific events and evaluations Paxson made last season. For Paxson, at least for me, these questions were never really answered (some of them were implicitly), just made moot by subsequent events.

I'm still in the "Fire Skiles" club, so I guess I should give an accounting there. I've not been a huge criticizer of his rotations or stuff like that, but I do have some things that really bother me about him; I worry they still hang over the team in the long run. I guess I think one or more of them will come back to bite us in the *** at some point, although I'll keep re-evaluating as we keep playing.

* The substance abuse history combined with a super high-stress job scare the hell out of me. Perhaps moreso after watching Rudy Tomjanovich flame out in LA.

* Despite our success over the past two months, I still believe our offensive sets are quite simple. Part of that is because our players are only capable of doing simple stuff, I'll concede. But I think the best teams play with guys who are very versatile- who can all play a hand in distributing and moving the ball. I think Skiles is comfortable with a floor general who sets things up and distributes to everyone else. That's what he was, and that's who and how he's always seemed to coach.

(Yeah, I know no team can afford to lose its superstar, but I'm talking about something different here. It's one thing to lose your most talented player, it's another to lose a key element of a system).

* Finally, I've detected something I don't really like in the way of leadership in Skiles; when things were bad, I sometimes had the sense of him washing him hands of the team. Something along the lines of "We won" when the Bulls win, and "They lost" when the Bulls lost. I'm coming around on that one, but I got that sense a lot last year.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Well Mike, you're the only poster here that I can count on to be substantially more verbose than I am in your posts! I snipped the post to save space, and my computer's awfully choppy now, so this won't be as detailed as yours.

I think you took the brevity of my post the wrong way - I don't think Pax would just spout off talking points at all. I know that my post implied this, but I don't think Pax would trot out the same cliches in answer to every "question" you posed, but I DO think that those themes mentioned in my last post would be overarching in many of his more detailed thoughtful responses. Why did he play CBAers instead of ERob or Fizer? One, because ERob and Fizer weren't going to win us many games anyway (IMO), and two, because ERob especially - not Fizer so much, I honestly don't know what the deal was with him - didn't put enough into the team (practice, addressing his weakness, etc.). Related to that, he wanted guys like Chandler and Curry, and even Hinrich, to take away the point that what they get out of being a Chicago Bull depends largely on what they are willing to put in. And since the net cost of this message was winning 23 games instead of 24, it was a message well worth sending. He probably also would make an argument that ERob and Fizer were known quantities around the league and the thought of getting anything worthwhile back for them in trade was unlikely, especially in ERob's case with his retarded salary. (that's debateable, but I don't think "showcasing" those two guys would have done much for us other than run counter to Pax's message) 

That's an abbreviated example of something I think Pax would say in response to one of your questions. I'm obviously not in his head, so I can't speak for the man. To me, I'd be appreciative of that answer. You? I don't know. DaBullz? He might call BS on something like that and fire him right then. I don't know.

But in that response is a theme of accountability and teamwork that I think would pervade most of his responses. Last year, when the season was a wash by late December, it was as good a time as any to send those messages and set the ground rules of what needed to be done. It's my opinion that some of the decisions he made, or supported Skiles on, may have been short-term negatives, but they had at least a small role in setting up the environment we're benefitting from.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Oh my, you must really don't like them (Paxon and Skile), MikeDC.

We can all talk about this kind of matter under the pretense of objectivity but when it come down to sum up to one sentence, eventually it come down to whether you like them or not.

I don't think people come up with this kind of conclusion after deep analysis like MikeDC presented. More likely it starts in the back of your mind that intrigues you or bothers you. Usually that something intangible is what dictates people like something or someone. Only then people come up with why they like it and what reason like when someone ask you why you love someone, the best answer is sometimes simply "Because ...." and nothing more.

So I doubt even you, Mike, conclude that you don't like Paxon or Skile after this kind of in-depth analysis. Simply they were never your kind of GM and coach. And in fact that is more than enough reason for me.

Everybody has certain preference in player and even in GM and coaches. It's just a matter of this preference more than these specificities. Just like from the moment I laid my eyes on them, Gordon, Deng, Kirk and Chandler was my kind of player (Paxon was great candidate as a Gm in my book so I was very happy when he was hired) and Jamal, Rose, Erob never had a chance with me. Eddy is slowly coming around. I thought Edddy would never get it but he shows enough sign lately to make me think that he will eventually some time soon.

So thanks for your usual in-depth analysis but I think you are reaching. Everybody got it by now. You don't particulary fond of Paxon and Skile (from the day one if I remember correctly). As for Skile, I too still have some reservation and this feeling that Skile will be only effective as transient coach before we become a contender but as for Paxon he has my full support.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> For those of you "brave souls" who withstood us hooligans who wanted Skiles and Paxson fired, start your own "Don't fire Paxson or Skiles" clubs and take a stand.


I sort of thought this thread was, in effect, posters taking a stand. As have the many other threads and posts on this board commenting on those clubs.

So what is your point?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So thanks for your usual in-depth analysis but I think you are reaching. Everybody got it by now. You don't particulary fond of Paxon and Skile (from the day one if I remember).


I don't remember being against Paxson or Skiles from the beginning 

I also don't see how it can simply be reduced to me not liking him (at least in Pax's case) since I removed myself from the "Fire Pax club" because I concluded his good moves were "good enough". I mean, I obviously like him enough to want to keep him around now. 

If I were just "rooting for him to fail" because I "didn't like him as a person"- to paraphrase DaBullz' statement, I think that'd be a fair assessment of my position. In general, there's truth to the idea that everyone starts with some intuition, but I think don't think it's true everything can be reduced back to it.

*VF*

Sorry for my verbosity- I'm actually taking a class on how to write more clearly this semester; I just forget when I'm tired, in a hurry, or procrastinating (right now I'm all three)


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't remember being against Paxson or Skiles from the beginning
> ...


I didn't imply that you were rooting for him to fail to prove your point. You were never that kind of poster and I knew that. I was more on that intuition thing. From my own experience, when I become to like a particluar player whether in NBA or college, it is always more like "Hey, I like this guy's game". I never come to this conclusion after detailed analysis of his game is all I am saying. That usually comes much later when my liking or disliking to that player becomes a forgone conclusion at least for me and I think this would be to some degree true to everybody.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Thanks. I see your point on number 5, but I wasn't intending it in the sort of way you interpreted it. You're right, playing those guys just to raise their value probably wouldn't have been consistent with Pax's values. At least, not in the "we have to play the right way or else" sense. But, I think playing up those guys' value would be consistent with "following his instincts" in another sense; it would get them in a movable position sooner rather than later.
> 
> Let me try to reformulate the question. John, I agree with your goal of getting rid of the guys who don't have what you're looking for and getting guys in here who have the attitude you want. Consistent with that goal, wouldn't it be better to play those guys so we could get them out of here quicker, rather than let them languish on the bench, upset? As the season dragged along, they were a continuing source of controversy and it was clear we didn't want them back. Given that, why wait so long to cut our losses on them?


Because deeds speak much louder than words. And the way in which we will bring this organization back to respectability is by setting a new tone. We might get less in trade for Robinson or Fizer, but that is OK. Players will learn that when we say that playing the right way matters, we mean what we say. That may result in us taking some lumps in the short-term, but in the long-term we will better off.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Because deeds speak much louder than words. And the way in which we will bring this organization back to respectability is by setting a new tone. We might get less in trade for Robinson or Fizer, but that is OK. Players will learn that when we say that playing the right way matters, we mean what we say. That may result in us taking some lumps in the short-term, but in the long-term we will better off.


several applicable cliche'

can't see the forest but the trees
look at the big picture
do it right...once
don't get bogged down in the details

I still say, I never believed Pax wanted that original Krause/Rose/Marshall/Crawford/Erob team. Yet he gave it a chance to work. 
Maybe because he was new and didn't want to "blow it up for the sake of blowing it up" right away 
Maybe because he was giving himself more time to study the situation
Maybe because a truly wise man knows he doesn't have all the answers, and was guarding against his own ego 
He knew what he wanted. But also knew that there were other things to consider First

IMHO, the fact that he waited to pull the trigger on the Nuke _after_ the team failed was to his everlasting credit....not discredit. That was not an egotistical man at work. It was a measured, studied thinker. And to go back, and try and critique Paxsons approach after he's enjoyed some sucess with it, is a mistake.

Many GMs come in with a lightsaber slashing and cutting everything, and they spin their wheels. Well, We may have the exceptional GM who has the right temperament for this Job

.....and what really matters is getting it right in the end. Noone is perfect. Smart people learn and grow as Paxson is doing


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I do agree with fleet that there was a certain tone to the board that if you dared show any optimism about the team, you risked being shouted down as a Kool-aid junkie who was blinded by your fandom. But that was mostly just the mood of a Chicago Bulls board that was seeing its team fall to 0-9.


It started a long time before that VF. Dare I say it even began in the B.A. era (before Arenas)?

* * *

I'm one of those kool-aid junkies and I've needled Scott, RLucas, K4E and others from time to time, but more so on their current positions - trying to win them over to the "positive" pov.  

I usually don't agree with their take, but that doesn't make them any less intelligent or any less interesting. That said, the board did suck pretty badly last year. 

Sports are and always will be nothing more than entertainment for me. Unfortunately, for some, sports are a forum to piss and moan their day away. Others, and I believe ScottMay to be in this group, are just a little more intense than I am (I won't concede passionate  ). I do think there is a difference between posters who are just here to "start something" and those who are genuinely dissatisfied with the way things were going. 

We're always going to disagree and the GM, Coach and players will always be doing something wrong or questionable because thats human nature. So long as we can debate it like reasonable members of a small community its all good.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> yet here they are engaging in a very similar, *albeit far more personalized, form of negative behavior*, even going to the extent of accusing those who were unhappy with the Bulls of having sad, unfulfilled, uncontented lives.


Mind you, I didn't say that about you but, were you not aware of the kool-aid drinker carnage during the Arenas era?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I like the players, each and every one of them. *I like the players we USED to have, too, and follow them, as a fan should*.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I want to wait and see what Paxson does with Curry and Chandler this offseason before I give him the free pass.


Neither the GM, Coach or players should get a free pass. 

They shouldn't be needlessly persecuted on a daily basis either.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

DaBullz! said:


> I like the players, each and every one of them.


I can pretty much say that I agree and have been the same...for the most part. Some i have kept at arms length.
Theres only one player I can recall turning on. One Eddie Robberinson. There should be limits lol, and E-Gone is a prime example



> I like the players we USED to have, too


thats fair


> and follow them


how closely??????



> as a fan should.


 dictator!!!

j/k DaBullz!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Mind you, I didn't say that about you but, were you not aware of the kool-aid drinker carnage during the Arenas era?


I'm very aware of it. Are you aware that I'm not arenas, rlucas, MichaelofAZ, or any of the other "haters" who people are upset with because they're not around to take their lumps?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm very aware of it. Are you aware that I'm not arenas, rlucas, MichaelofAZ, or any of the other "haters" who people are upset with because they're not around to take their lumps?


I cut the people who have left a little more slack. I'm taking my lumps right now, and they have never felt so good. I'm so happy I was wrong. People take hiatuses all the time for their own reasons. We're all Bulls fans, and I can't imagine anyone leaving the forum's because their team finally turned things around. 









Except for Arenas, he's a punk. 


jk. come back, we miss you.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I'm very aware of it. Are you aware that I'm not arenas, rlucas, MichaelofAZ, or any of the other "haters" who people are upset with because they're not around to take their lumps?


Scott, I've never thought of you as a hater until today when you're own label said "hater". Are you trying to tell us something? :laugh:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Scott, I've never thought of you as a hater until today when you're own label said "hater". Are you trying to tell us something? :laugh:


If you're so pro-management, then why is your name No Excuses; No Vision? Just curious.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: All-Star call for dismemberment of the FirePax Club.. *



lorgg said:


> The insanity must end. Take down your wall, DaBullz, and join us.
> 
> :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset:











AAA rraaaahhht eese an ukkly seengk...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Scott, I've never thought of you as a hater until today when you're own label said "hater". Are you trying to tell us something? :laugh:


Just gettin' my 10 dollars' worth of fun.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Just gettin' my 10 dollars' worth of fun.


Speaking of fun, has anyone noticed how the call has moved from "disbanding" the club to "dismembering" its members?

I'll stay enmembered, thank you.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

how about deHorning (as Hawk Harrelson says) the members? *ouch*


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Please explain this people. I was called the biggest Skiles hater and all and all, yet I am not a member of that stupid club. I am not a member of that stupid club. I look like a genious now for not clicking on the thread when it was originally made. Shame on you all!!!!


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Okay, I'll chip in my two cents here, since I'm looking for a good way to put off physics for another 20 minutes.

Earlier in the season, and perhaps a bit before that, (like when Arenas was around), this board was getting a bit dragged down. There WAS a little bit of a lemming mentality going around, and a certain type of 'groupthink' was starting to develop a little bit, which wasn't really cool. Of course, there were plenty of posters, most of them in fact, who were extremely reasonable and courteous in their criticism of Pax, but the overall net effect of their opinions, combined with the few who were a little more fanatic, sometimes made the board a little less fun.

However, this whole business of calling people out who were critical of Skiles and Paxson and demanding that they repent is just as silly. It's a message board people, and if there's going to be some underlying requirement that everyone needs to have the popular opinion, then.........that pretty much nullifies the whole purpose of this board, right? And honestly, who cares about some club in DaBullz' signature anyway? People should be allowed to have their own opinions, and if they still think Paxson should be fired, then great, good for them. Just let them be. 

And besides, for the most part, most of the criticism that was directed at Skiles and Paxson at the time was justified. Even if I didn't necessarily agree with all of it, there was usually some sort of rationale behind it, that made it seem legitimate to me. Of course, there were some people who took it too far and became a little vindictive of people who didn't agree with them, but pretty much the same thing is going on right now too (take the person who started this thread, for example  ).

And on that note.........if things keep going as well as they do, I wouldn't be surprised if this board develops the exact opposite problem. That is, it will become sacriligious to openly question and criticize Paxson and Skiles, since the team is doing so well, and those types of opinions will begin to be criticized and discouraged. And the people who were complaining about the constant negativity on the boards and persecution they received for being pro Skiles or pro Paxson will end up doing the exact same thing they were complaining that was happening to them. Oh well, such is human nature, I guess.

Okay, midterm to study for................


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

This is an interesting thread about a group I have never joined but definitely understood why it was formed.

To me the thread is more than about that though its about people trying to lash out about something that is nothing more than a one time popular opinion, and one that may be popular again, and if it were to become that I wonder if those people would be in favor of them being called out as has been so in fashion lately ....time will tell if that ever comes to pass, but as I like to say we are tested as much in victory as we are in defeat and somehow even though we are all bulls fans supposedly there is a division or a believed one that there are bulls fans who want the bulls to lose, i dont see it just like i didn't see a group of bulls fans that wanted the bulls to lose just because krause was in charge or tim floyd or bill cartwright .

to me these kinds of threads say alot more about posters than the content ever say about their targets supposedly in this case those on Dabullz clubs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Okay, I'll chip in my two cents here, since I'm looking for a good way to put off physics for another 20 minutes.
> 
> Earlier in the season, and perhaps a bit before that, (like when Arenas was around), this board was getting a bit dragged down. There WAS a little bit of a lemming mentality going around, and a certain type of 'groupthink' was starting to develop a little bit, which wasn't really cool. Of course, there were plenty of posters, most of them in fact, who were extremely reasonable and courteous in their criticism of Pax, but the overall net effect of their opinions, combined with the few who were a little more fanatic, sometimes made the board a little less fun.
> 
> ...


Ah, Rosenthall... so reasonable and level-headed. You'll never get anywhere with that attitude.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

FirePax club? Bring 'em on!


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Ah, Rosenthall... so reasonable and level-headed. You'll never get anywhere with that attitude.


Good. Glad to see my post-college plans of withdrawing myself from society and becoming a tibetan goat farmer are still on track.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Neither the GM, Coach or players should get a free pass.
> 
> They shouldn't be needlessly persecuted on a daily basis either.


They get a free pass for a year. These clubs started not long after they got their jobs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Good. Glad to see my post-college plans of withdrawing myself from society and becoming a tibetan goat farmer are still on track.


Are you kidding? Those Tibetan goats are some stubborn mother ****ers


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Are you kidding? Those Tibetan goats are some stubborn mother ****ers


Slip them a roofie and they'll do what ever you want -- advice from an un-named source.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Neither the GM, Coach or players should get a free pass.
> 
> They shouldn't be needlessly persecuted on a daily basis either.


They get a free pass for a year. These clubs started not long after they got their jobs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lorgg said:


> They get a free pass for a year. These clubs started not long after they got their jobs.


These clubs started when Pax fired Cartwright (a very good human being), badmouted the players on the team, paid $10.5M for Pip (who didn't play), the team's record was like 4-14 (after he "promised" playoffs), the lineup was studded with NBDL players, etc.

The facts are that I, personally, was fine with Pax until those things happened, among others. And when the Bulls won their first game under Skiles, I was pretty excited. That didn't last, of course, because they played terrible under Skiles the rest of the season.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> These clubs started when Pax fired Cartwright (a very good human being), badmouted the players on the team, paid $10.5M for Pip (who didn't play), the team's record was like 4-14 (after he "promised" playoffs), the lineup was studded with NBDL players, etc.
> 
> The facts are that I, personally, was fine with Pax until those things happened, among others. And when the Bulls won their first game under Skiles, I was pretty excited. That didn't last, of course, because they played terrible under Skiles the rest of the season.


Cartwright is a very good human being, but he was a terrible head coach.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Slip them a roofie and they'll do what ever you want -- advice from an un-named source.


Greekbullsfan?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Cartwright is a very good human being, but he was a terrible head coach.


The evidence is to the contrary.

The Bulls went from 15 -> 21 -> 30 wins with him as coach. He had to endure the growing pains of the teen twin towers along with Crawford. He was given a #2 pick who proved to be a lot more hype than actual performance on the court. The players responded to him so well that for the final two months of that 30 win season, people saw such improvement that they thought the Bulls were going to the playoffs, including Paxson. He won those 30 games with a roster that was stripped of Artest, Brand, Miller, et al, and with Rose (if you think he was so terrible...).

On top of the data being in his favor, he was a 7' PF/C himself and had firsthand knowledge about what it would take for Curry/Chandler to play together. He also ran the triangle offense, which was both demanded by both GMs and was used by teams that won 9 of the last 11 (or 12) championships.

And, he's still coaching in the NBA, though not as a head coach. I do think he'll be back in that position in the future.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The evidence is to the contrary.
> 
> The Bulls went from 15 -> 21 -> 30 wins with him as coach. He had to endure the growing pains of the teen twin towers along with Crawford. He was given a #2 pick who proved to be a lot more hype than actual performance on the court. The players responded to him so well that for the final two months of that 30 win season, people saw such improvement that they thought the Bulls were going to the playoffs, including Paxson. He won those 30 games with a roster that was stripped of Artest, Brand, Miller, et al, and with Rose (if you think he was so terrible...).
> 
> ...


There were some huge personnel changes that occured to aid in the increase in wins during those seasons. 

As far as his merits as a head coach, you and I (and many others) argued this to exhaustion in the past. As far as the triangle offense, you also know how I felt about the decision to run it, and I'm not really sure who's decision it was, so I'm not sure if Cartwright should be blamed.

If your main argument in support of Cartwright as a good coach is the improvement in wins, maybe you should apply that same argument to Skiles.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The evidence is to the contrary.
> 
> The Bulls went from 15 -> 21 -> 30 wins with him as coach. He had to endure the growing pains of the teen twin towers along with Crawford. He was given a #2 pick who proved to be a lot more hype than actual performance on the court. The players responded to him so well that for the final two months of that 30 win season, people saw such improvement that they thought the Bulls were going to the playoffs, including Paxson. He won those 30 games with a roster that was stripped of Artest, Brand, Miller, et al, and with Rose (if you think he was so terrible...).
> 
> ...


I think Cartwright is a decent head coach as a whole, but there's no doubt he was a horrible head coach for a team that was this young. He never stressed, or never successfully stressed, defense and conditioning. I think it's fair to say that he hurt Curry and Chandler's developmental progress (and that's Krause's and Floyd's fault as well) by not instilling and forcing the importance of hard work upon the team. He may have been more knowledgeable about how to use big men on the court, but that knowledge is worthless when he doesn't teach those big men to work off the court. 

I don't think Skiles is a good long term choice *at all*. But there's no doubt that he's what this team needed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I think Cartwright is a decent head coach as a whole, but there's no doubt he was a horrible head coach for a team that was this young. He never stressed, or never successfully stressed, defense and conditioning. I think it's fair to say that he hurt Curry and Chandler's developmental progress (and that's Krause's and Floyd's fault as well) by not instilling and forcing the importance of hard work upon the team. He may have been more knowledgeable about how to use big men on the court, but that knowledge is worthless when he doesn't teach those big men to work off the court.
> 
> I don't think Skiles is a good long term choice *at all*. But there's no doubt that he's what this team needed.


If he didn't teach the big men, how do you explain their performance during the last two months of his only full season as coach?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If he didn't teach the big men, how do you explain their performance during the last two months of his only full season as coach?


If he did teach the big men, then how do you explain their dismal performance in the first 9 games of his last short season as head coach?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> If he did teach the big men, then how do you explain their dismal performance in the first 9 games of his last short season as head coach?


Dismal? By what standards?

Curry averaged 13.1/6.7 for November that year. First 9 games:
9/6
22/4
11/5
1/4
4/2
21/9
16/9
20/9
16/14
15/9

I don't think the "out of shape" excuse holds for a guy who scored like he did and rebounded 9+ for those 5 straight games. 

For November of this year, under Skiles, 13.7 PPG/6.6 RPG.

Chandler was 7.3/7.6 in November this year, under Skiles. He was 13/9 the year before.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/gamelog?statsId=3512&sYear=2004&sType=2


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Dismal? By what standards?
> 
> Curry averaged 13.1/6.7 for November that year. First 9 games:
> 9/6
> ...


Too bad there aren't any stats for defense. I thought there was a consensus that Curry came into camp horribly out of shape and unable to play defense. That Chandler had still not gained significant weight or improved his jumper. That Curry and Chandler both did not work as hard as they should have that summer. 

If you don't agree with that consensus then I'm not sure what to argue.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Too bad there aren't any stats for defense. I thought there was a consensus that Curry came into camp horribly out of shape and unable to play defense. That Chandler had still not gained significant weight or improved his jumper. That Curry and Chandler both did not work as hard as they should have that summer.
> 
> If you don't agree with that consensus then I'm not sure what to argue.


Look at the numbers again. How does an out of shape Curry grab all those boards, unlike he does for Skiles, and WITH a demon of a Chandler (that month, we bbb.net bulls posters voted him our MVP, I do recall) out there grabbing boards, too?

Plus both players are a year older and more experienced. I don't know how to account for any differences that might make, too.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

When I'm mulling over my possible resignation from the Fire Skiles club, a horrible home loss to a Shaq-less, foul-ridden Heat club will not do much to help his cause, to say nothing of the fact that our best offensive sequence is usually a broken play.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> When I'm mulling over my possible resignation from the Fire Skiles club, a horrible home loss to a Shaq-less, foul-ridden Heat club will not do much to help his cause, to say nothing of the fact that our best offensive sequence is usually a broken play.


Yeah it was ragged tonight, but to credit the Heat they play good team defense and Wade was all but impossible to stop going the other way. Hinrich played well below the usual most of the night.. maybe the hand is bothering him.. maybe Wade.. maybe both. I do credit Skiles for using the three guard alignment which did alleviate the offense a bit down the stretch. May have been the first time he used that all season (can't remember if he played Duhon-Gordon_Hinrich together before)


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i have a feeling this Bulls team is a slow starter, like at the beginning of the year. They lost some momentum B4 the break, and during. Its probably youth. It takes experience to know how to handle all the ups and downs of the NBA and how to get the right approach to games
The problem the Bull had tonight, and have had recently, is on defense. Defense. Defense. Defense

as much as i keep hearing complaints about the offense on this board, NBA people generally are very impressed, or at least the ones who sound off are impressed


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> When I'm mulling over my possible resignation from the Fire Skiles club, a horrible home loss to a Shaq-less, foul-ridden Heat club will not do much to help his cause, to say nothing of the fact that our best offensive sequence is usually a broken play.


Yet they won. In large part due to Skiles' creative and risky move to go with a 3 guard lineup down the stretch and into overtime. As it stands, the Bulls are now more games over .500 than they have been in 7 years. 

And I don't understand why 1 loss, if they had lost, would make much of a difference. Do you make posts after wins to the effect that the single victory makes you lean towards resigning?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

That was a pretty nice move by Skiles.

Also nice that he kept Gordon in the game after the banked 3 pointer. The camera flashed to a disgusted looking Skiles after he it. Part of the look was "I don't believe it" and "that kid is sick", but another part seemed to be "what the **** was that". Credit to him for letting the first two override the last one.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> That was a pretty nice move by Skiles.
> 
> Also nice that he kept Gordon in the game after the banked 3 pointer. The camera flashed to a disgusted looking Skiles after he it. Part of the look was "I don't believe it" and "that kid is sick", but another part seemed to be "what the **** was that". Credit to him for letting the first two override the last one.


I was seriously  the three guard lineup with no Eddy against a Shaq-less Heat team down the stretch. Its not the first time I've questioned Skiles' lineups in end-game situations. But the thing is, they usually seem to work out. 

I guess thats because he knows more about NBA basketball than I do.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Amidst all the development of Tyson, Eddy, Gordon and Deng, I think Skiles own development gets lost too.

He was hanging out there on a vine when Pax called, and with largely no interest from the rest of the league. Now, I think he'll coach until he doesn't want to anymore. He deserves a thumbs up.

I can't remember who said it, but a coach once said that coaches are hired to be fired. Either you become a legend, or you spend 4 or 5 years somewhere and move on to your next location. I don't think Skiles will have a Sloan length run here, but he's about guaranteed himself a place in the league for a long while to come.


----------

