# Which way is the wind blowing?



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The purpose of this thread is to record your feelings on the current Bulls.

You should start any post with one of three answers: Positive, Neutral, or Negative.

At any time your if your feelings change on them just post the change, and a reason why. This historically can show the trends of feelings towards the Bulls and why people feel the way they do.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Neutral

The Bulls had a decent draft, but they have not secured veteran NBA talent to help them. Pippen is likely not going to play, and Eddie Gill was signed by the Pacers. Crawford remains unsigned and reports on Eddie Curry are discouraging. Youth is fun to watch at times, but does little to help in the win column. I am leaning Negative depending on the outcome of several events/trades that may occur.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> The purpose of this thread is to record your feelings on the current Bulls.
> 
> You should start any post with one of three answers: Positive, Neutral, or Negative.
> ...


If we make this Knicks trade.....
NEGATIVE
We're trading our most productive player and a guy that is clearly an asset for nothing but "cap relief." Having all this cap space didn't help us in the past, and its doubtful it will help us this time. And we won't even be saving that much. 

If we hold off on the Knicks trade or get something GOOD for Jamal....
NEUTRAL
Chandler sounds good. Jamal will take another step. Curry could be solid. Deng, Hinrich, Gordon..... all sounds OK... but not playoff caliber unless Chander and Curry take a HUGE step.


If we make the Knicks trade I'll have a hard time supporting this team anymore.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

NEGATIVE.

Paxson's draft was truly outstanding, but all that it did was to bring the Bulls to something worse than they were before he took over as GM. And instead of relying on veterans like Rose and Marshall to score, pass, and rebound, we're relying on unproven guys like Gordon (who I have VERY high hopes for) and a 19-year-old Deng (who may well be a very good player).

If we lose Jamal for cap garbage, then to equal that 30 win team of two seasons ago, Hinrich has to match the performance of both JWill and Crawford, Gordon has to match the performance of Rose (22/5/5, unlikely), and Deng/Nocioni have to match the performance of Marshall (14/10).

On top of that, we also lost a 2nd round pick we invested a lot of PT in and who performed (Hassell) and a solid swingman vet who was a sparkplug on the boards for us (Hoiberg). We also unceremoniously dumped Corey Blount, who had is 2nd best season as a pro and who actually contributed defense, rebounding, and a fairly consistent outside shot.

We're saddled with ERob, JYD (who didn't play much the last 1/4 of last season for unknown reasons), AD (who mailed it in all season and is basically not a very good player anymore), Pip (who looked like the best player on the team when on the floor, regardless of stats), plus a roster full of NBDL caliber players.

Needless to say, the rest of the league, as an aggregate, have improved while the Bulls have basically treaded water (if all things go as well as we hope).


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

Neutral

However Paxson seems to be turning the team in the right direction. I'm not expecting playoffs, but I am expecting to finally see a team that actualy plays like a team. If we can unload Crawford to the Knicks, it will be one more good move by Paxson, in what has so far been a very successful offseason. Still the offseason seems far from over.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Neutral

Could go positive if Chandler is healthy and he and Curry bring more of their promise to reality.

Could go negative if we lose Craw for squat and Hinrich and Gordon prove to be no better a backcourt tandem. Or even worse.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Negative

In and of itself, we are a revolving door of first round "potential"

We have lost Brand we have lost Artest, We have lost Fizer, we have lost (almost) Crawford.

We have lost the two "full boats".

We have lost LOTS AND LOTS of games.

We have signed some great signings (Miller, Marshall) but traded them for ugly contracts.

We have had some terrible signings (Mercer, Erobb, dare I say Pippen) 

Every year, the next crop of talented youngsters is supposedly going to be the difference.

We have no familiarity with this team. From coaches, to players... there just isn't any time to grow as a team as ALL OF US ARE TIRED OF WAITING!!!

In the end, Tyson isn't a basketball player. An Athlete? Absolutely... but hardly Garnett. Curry isn't remotely SHaq like, he dissapoints every season. Gordon is now a 2, Deng a quality 3 who can't even be assure that he will be a starter on a horrible team. 

There isn't much to hope for.

Maybe the dynamic clicks. Maybe the horses start to pull in the same direction. Maybe Gordon/Hinrich is the next Isiah/Dumars.

Maybe maybe maybe...

Thats the problem! There are few (if any certainties) Tyson back (uncertain) Eddy's weight (uncertain) Ben able to play the 2 (uncertain) Jamal a Bull (uncertain)... everywhere there are questions with no answers... nothing to cling to as truth.

We don't have a Lebron and nothing else... 

Orlando went from a one trick pony to a good starting 5. We are busy trading lotto picks for cap space (so that we can sign our young players who haven't accomplished anything to bigger deals.)

No I don't like where we are.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> and Eddie Gill was signed by the Pacers.


Yes he was. But this impacts the Bulls how???





(You're confusing him with Kendall Gill)


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes he was. But this impacts the Bulls how???
> ...


Damn

When I read that I knew there was a reason I was confused. I was interrupted while I was typing that up and never fact checked it. Thanks for the heads up.

Still holding on Neutral even with that tidbit.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Neutral.

It could swing either way, depending on what happens with Crawford, and the Eddy Curry rumors. The draft was nice, and I think both Gordon and Deng will pan out, but this whole offseason could go in the can if Pax blows the Jamal Crawford dilemma. 

I do like that Pax is being proactive in trying to build a team according to his own ideals (everyone needs a vision), but still worry that he may be too attached to them for his own good, which gives me anxiety about him trading talents like Crawford and Curry, who are extremely gifted but don't fit the mold of what Pax is trying to build. 

The rest of this offseason should be indicative of whether or not my fears are justified.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Neutral leaning towards negative. We need more help. 

We had a good draft but then how long before we see results from the draft? 

Reports about Curry is discouraging, but on the flip side Chandler seems to be doing pretty good. 

More changes need to be made.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Negative

The New York trade probably made sense financially, but it makes the Bulls a much worse team this season. The Bulls just lost their most productive player in Crawford and their most productive big man (which isn't much of a compliment) in Jerome Williams and really got nothing of much value back in trade. The Bulls have taken a step and a half backwards from their 23-win season of a year ago.

Perhaps Paxson now takes this opportunity to make a trade where he adds salary and talent, but if not this may be the worst team the Bulls have suited up since the rebuilding began.

Hopefully, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Hinrich, Curry, and Chandler will be able to improve their games without getting demoralized by all of the losing (and the bad press and trade talk that comes with losing, especially when two players are in contract years) and being forced into roles they are probably not ready for. Along these lines it seems to be a huge risk to place so much weight on Gordon's shoulders.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'm gonna be the homer in the bunch and say mostly positive. When I make that statement I'm viewing this team in relation to last years team. Is this a better team than last season? There really is no true way to know until Nov 5th when they lace 'em up and go at it again. Even in light of probably losing Crawford to the Knicks I would say that this team is better, top to bottom, than last years edition. Gordon and Deng are solid additions and are certainly better than whom they replaced in DuPree and (hopefully) Shirley. I'm expecting a healthy and productive Chandler - which we didn't have last season. I'm hoping for an in-shape Curry who can be a factor before the all-star game. I'm looking for an improved Hinrich. I think his assist numbers can be even better than last season simply because he won't be passing to DuPree and Shirley. There are some guys on this team that can make shots. If we sign Nocioni, he gives us depth that we never had last year. I'm thinking folks will quickly forget JYD when they see Harrington knocking down 12ft. jumpers with regularity and actually making uncontested layups. 

This team may not win many more games than last seasons' edition, but I think that the mental makeup and the competetivness of this group will come through. In that sense, it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm going to have to go negative here. The Bulls seem much more concerned about being fiscally sound than being sound from a basketball perspective. John Paxson has shown that he has a good eye for talent and I think Deng will be a very nice player and Gordon will also with some time to grow. Still, this team has become a farm team. We ship out a talent like Crawford for capspace and crap. Our "vet" players are Pippen who is basically done, Mutombo who isn't far behind, E-Rob who is overpaid and underplayed, Andtonio Davis...washed up, and Moochie Norris who a lot of people say is a cancer. We might have some real talent with Hinrich, Deng, Curry, Chandler, and Gordon, but we have surrpounded them with crap. We have lost our leading scorer and second leading assist man for what amounts to a bag of balls. People will say "oh we have cap room now, we can go after the big FA's like Michael Redd in 06" I would just ask "how has going after big name free agents worked out for us in the past?" I don't see any reason for that to change. Paxson needs now to badly add a player like Wesley Person (who is close to being done himself) JUST so we can field any semblance of a competetive NBA backcourt. Still, I get the feeling that he won't because despite playing for a championship team, Pax doesn't know how to put one together. He is going for "his" sort of guys and thats all well and good but he is jettisoning real talent to do it and it will come back to haunt us like it always does. Right now the Bulls are about a 30 win team next season but don't be fooled if they win 30, they still haven't made any real improvement.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Neutral*

Short term I think we will see more losses. Losing Crawdaddy will leave the team looking for a new identity.

Long term I think we see more wins. Pax appears to be focusing on losing players who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their own playing. Looks like he's bringing in mentally tough and hard working players to replace them. Also looks like his attempt to be fiscally responsible will allow us future flexibility to tweak and shape the roster as our new identity emerges.

I think we'll begin to see the shift into the long-term prognosis somwhere around mid-season. I don't think we'll be any worse than we were last season.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Positive.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Positive side of neutral. We're still gonna be crap, but there's light at the end of the tunnel, and we least we're actually looking down the tunnel now.


----------



## katman17 (Jul 12, 2004)

Positive

Paxson (although on this board has many doubters) is trying to fix the mess left by krause. He is trying to bring in players with heart and will give 110%. The only person right now that doesn't display those attributes is Curry, and i'm a huge curry fan and hopefully i am wrong on him. ERob and Crawford are the others that are on the current roster but hopefully they will be gone by season start. I know this Crawford comment is going to bring in a lot of comments back to me, but we gotta be serious, he was our leading score and what did that to for us, 20 wins? He doesn't play defense and dribbles way too much. He cannot be a #1 option and as long as he is in Chicago he will truly believe he is the #1 option. He will probably excel somewhere else, but he is not a good fit for chicago. 

This is Curry's final chance to keep me as a fan, he needs to dominate like we all hope he can.


----------



## osman (Jul 29, 2003)

Negative

Lets face the facts. Jamal Crawford was the Bulls most productive player last year, and losing him will continue the extended rebuilding process. Curry and Chandler have alot of "what if's" assoicated with their success.

Gordon and Deng are rookies who are talented, but will still need time to adjust to the NBA game. The only guarantee the Bulls have going into this season is Kirk Heinrich, who will be solid once again.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Perhaps Paxson now takes this opportunity to make a trade where he adds salary and talent, but if not this may be the worst team the Bulls have suited up since the rebuilding began.


Dan, I can't believe you'd compare the roster as it sits today, even without Crawford, to the 1998-1999 season.

Neutral, leaning towards the positive.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Positive side of neutral. We're still gonna be crap, but there's light at the end of the tunnel, and we least we're actually looking down the tunnel now.


The light is a train.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Dan, I can't believe you'd compare the roster as it sits today, even without Crawford, to the 1998-1999 season.
> 
> Neutral, leaning towards the positive.


Toni Kukoc in 1998-99 was much better than any player on the current roster. Brent Barry was much better than any player on the current roster, possibly with the exception of Kirk Hinrich. Barry played poorly for the Bulls because he was put into a role he was not suited for, much like is being done with the current set of Bulls.

We may poke fun at Dickey Simpkins and Mark Bryant, but they were just as productive as the Bulls big people were last season.

The Bulls' current roster has tons more "potential" than that roster, but as for actual production this season, I think the argument can go either way.

Also, that team had the advantage of coming out of a lockout, a situation where playing hard could make a big difference. The 2004-05 Bulls will have no such advantage.

That 1998-99 team won 13 games, which projects out to 21 over an 82 game season. The Bulls are likely to struggle to surpass 21 wins this season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> Dan, I can't believe you'd compare the roster as it sits today, even without Crawford, to the 1998-1999 season.
> 
> Neutral, leaning towards the positive.


That team won 13 games in the strike shortened season (.260 win percentage). The leaning toward positive was to 17 wins the next season (.207 win percentage).

Ironically, that 17 win team, we added Brand and Artest, who might compare favorably (as rookies) to Deng and Gordon.

The comparison might be a lot more insightful than it appears on the surface.

EDIT:
Dan beat me to it, but my post adds a little to what he wrote.

I'll add this to his more recent post. Losing Kukoc (18.8/7/5) was similar to our losing Rose (22/5/5).


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

Positive. I enjoy watching grown men play a child's game. I will never take sport too seriously.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

POSITIVE.

I am with Flash. I mean if you ant to look at the down the road future, you may have different view. But if you only compare this year and last year's team, how can I feel anything but positive. Even losing Jamal, this team is at least as good as last year or better. 

I still believe Paxon can turn this team around in 2 years. People underestimated him as GM so much but he is making an impact slowly. And I like what I saw so far.

So definitely I have a positive feeling for this team this year.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The light is a train.






I prefer to think of it as a bandwagon. :greatjob:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!Right now the Bulls are about a 30 win team next season but don't be fooled if they win 30, they still haven't made any real improvement.


Huh? 

Gotta be honest, it sounds like a pre-emptive strike against any improvement that could be made or laid claim to. There has been far too much talk of 23 wins being a big step back to say that 30 wins is no improvement, right?

If 30 wins isn't any real improvement, and I believe we'll win more than 30, then what is the magical number?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh?
> ...


a short term slight improvement doesn't necessarily mean the team is headed in the right direction for the long term. And if you remember correctly, the season before last we had 30 wins.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> a short term slight improvement doesn't necessarily mean the team is headed in the right direction for the long term. And if you remember correctly, the season before last we had 30 wins.


Aren't you just being sour now that Jamal is most likely gone? And why do you presume that any improvement in this coming season is short term effect? Based on what? 

Oh, because we don't have Jamal any more.... Come on.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> 
> Aren't you just being sour now that Jamal is most likely gone? And why do you presume that any improvement in this coming season is short term effect? Based on what?
> ...


yes...and we should all be sour. Short term effect because the Bulls are losing their leading scorer and Gordon is no long term solution at SG. We did upgrade our sf position so that is good at least.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Gordon is no long term solution at SG.


Neither was Jamal.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Neither was Jamal.


RIGHT ON!


----------



## katman17 (Jul 12, 2004)

Who are people kidding? Jamal not being a bull does not set this team back for the longterm. Jamal was no savior. If he was, wouldnt there be more teams going after him? One lousy team has publicly said that they want jamal and are making a run at him. 

Having Jamal next season does not make or break this team.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>katman17</b>!
> Who are people kidding? Jamal not being a bull does not set this team back for the longterm. Jamal was no savior. If he was, wouldnt there be more teams going after him? One lousy team has publicly said that they want jamal and are making a run at him.
> 
> Having Jamal next season does not make or break this team.


I guess that remains to be seen now doesn't it?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess that remains to be seen now doesn't it?


Not much to be seen IMO in fact. 

We have seen him for the last 4 years and what we have seen wasn't good enough obviously for Paxon and some of posters here. Otherwise why Paxon tried to get rid of him so hard?

No whether he will be better player or superstar as you claim is totally unpredictable. So whoever says whatever he want, it is all heresy.

I can say nothing remains to be seen just as much of competence as you would say that remains to be seen. So what? He won't be a Bull. I don't care about Jamal any more when he is playing for another team. I care about Bulls. Period.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Not much to be seen IMO in fact.
> 
> ...


Your right, the Bulls failures over the past 4 years are all entirely Jamal's fault and since Paxson, in his imminent wisdom, decided that Crawford should be dealt for capspace (and to save the owners money) we should all accept that as gospel and praise his name and sing a holy chorus of hallelujahs. 

A LOT remains to be seen, why? Because Jamal Crawford isn't fully developed for one. For two because he will be playing on a LEGIT team now and will be better as a result. I bet your one of the guys who was thrilled that we got Rose for Artest and Miller...a person with no vision whatsoever.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Your right, the Bulls failures over the past 4 years are all entirely Jamal's fault


He sure, for being the future, didn't do a lot to guarantee himself a place in the Bulls future. The Bulls were falling over themselves to find a replacement for him...

He did absolutely nothing to prove he could be part of a turn-around.

Nothing.




> A LOT remains to be seen, why? Because Jamal Crawford isn't fully developed for one.


How long does it take?


----------



## osman (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Not much to be seen IMO in fact.
> 
> ...


And what exactly have Curry or Chandler accomplished in one less year than Jamal? not much more IMO. Jamal is still a developing player and will blossom in the right situation.


----------



## Blueoak (Aug 4, 2004)

Postive.

Paxson is gradually bringing in good solid people (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, etc), who hopefully should not provide anymore soap opera nonsense. In the end, the solid people should help form a base for a competitive team. 

There is not much that can be done about the older bulls players. Chandler is a good player and he should be resigned. His back will adjust to the NBA, he's still young and learning his body. Over time he'll realize some physically improper habits he may have that are causing him injuries. I don't know what's up with Curry. It's disappointing to see him turn off and on like the clap on-off TV in the Duplex movie. 

Crawford needs to go in my opinion. He is a talented guy, but doesn't fit the NBA profile for me. He looks as if he has to force himself to play with the team. Other teams like Sacramento have/had 5 guys on the court who all know how to play with each other. Crawford does not give me that feeling.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blueoak</b>!
> Postive.
> 
> Paxson is gradually bringing in good solid people (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, etc), who hopefully should not provide anymore soap opera nonsense. In the end, the solid people should help form a base for a competitive team.
> ...


Which of the players you mentioned the Pax has brought in do you think would get significant playing time for Sacramento?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Which of the players you mentioned the Pax has brought in do you think would get significant playing time for Sacramento?


DaBullz, cut the guy some slack. It is his first post. Welcome Blueoak.


----------



## Blueoak (Aug 4, 2004)

I'm just emphasizing teamwork. The Bulls need to make sure their players mesh well and work together. I highly value a good passing team. I only used Sacramento as an example because they're great at this type of teamwork. The Nets were also.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> DaBullz, cut the guy some slack. It is his first post. Welcome Blueoak.


I'm not hassling the guy. I just asked a question to see what his opinion was.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Which of the players you mentioned the Pax has brought in do you think would get significant playing time for Sacramento?


If they were on Sacramento, I'm pretty sure Hinrich and Ben would both find their way on the floor.

Both are too productive not to.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

That's a fair answer.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Which way is the wind blowing ?

I know what direction it is coming from 

Downwind from Berto 

Pugh !

Really on the nose !


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

Negative

Things don't look good for next season. With Jamal likely being traded for salary-relief and no depth whatsoever, the Bulls will have one of the (if not _the_) youngest rosters in the league with a serious lack of depth at SG and go-to guys. Youth and holes in the roster leads to not very man wins.

If this was all that was wrong, I'd probably give them a neutral -- after all, not much has changed and they'd still have a bunch of potential.

But there's something that doesn't get brought up alot around here:

*What about that future pick?*

People are high on this off-season's kool-aid, but there will be no kool-aid next season when the Suns get to use the Bulls likely very high pick. What if that pick turns into a franchise player? I can already see this trade being brought up in the future in thosde "How did eveything go wrong?"topics if this goes south.

BTW, I think Deng might be neat-o but most likely not a franchise player.


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

Neutral , leaning toward Negative but hoping for Positive! 

No wait - Negative, leaning toward Positive hoping for Positive! 

No wait - uhhh GO BULLS! 
hey thats positive right?
:wave:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Negative
> 
> The New York trade probably made sense financially, but it makes the Bulls a much worse team this season. The Bulls just lost their most productive player in Crawford and their most productive big man (which isn't much of a compliment) in Jerome Williams and really got nothing of much value back in trade. The Bulls have taken a step and a half backwards from their 23-win season of a year ago.
> ...


Negative

I think Dan's analysis is pretty close to what I'm thinking, so I'm quoting it, although I'd add some other things that push me negative. Probably further negative than him.

1. The news on Curry is about the worst thing we could possibly hear. He's fat and he doesn't get it. He reminds me of all these kids my sister was friends with, who, upon graduating high school, announced what bad asses they were and all promptly went out and flunked out of college or couldn't hack it in the army. Most frightening of all is that in spite of all of this, he seems to still be the cornerstone. If he's not viewed like that, then letting Jamal go made even less sense. If he's not viewed like that, then we've waited too long to deal him, because his value declines more the longer we wait. As with prior practice, our decision-making regarding the big decisions seems to be not to make them. I could be wrong of course, but I've made my decision- Curry is going to be closer to "bust" than "bust out". At this point, it's unclear whether it's still worth trying to trade him... we've very likely missed the boat.

2. The best move the Bulls made this year, trading for an additional pick, made a huge amount of sense if they were making a push to put together a team that was going to make a jump. By not doing anything and by letting Jamal go for garbage, we effectively took a step backward however. Acquiring a second pick this year just masked it a bit, but in all likelihood at the cost of giving up a high pick next year.

3. We're still capped out and flirting with the luxury tax both this summer and the next. A trade that adds salary, as Dan mentions above, appears fairly unlikely to me.

4. We continue to miss the big picture when it comes to how to win basketball games. You win by having more talent, threats at every position, and skilled players who are neither too young nor too old but just right. We continue to move in the wrong direction, both in the short-run and the long-run in those respects.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robg</b>!
> Neutral , leaning toward Negative but hoping for Positive!
> 
> No wait - Negative, leaning toward Positive hoping for Positive!
> ...



I'm with this guy. I'll be making another batch of Bulls kool-aid once the season rolls around and predict an 8th seed like I always do. :djparty:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

negative , 

i see a 23 win team that traded its best player for cap space , not real cap space either because they wont be low enough to sign a free agent for much more than the MLE anyway 

i see a team that wont win enough to give chandler and curry the extensions they deserve making the idea of cap space even more laughable since they will only pay for a winner and the bulls clearly wont be that

i see a management that has fed its fans cow pies and now is giving them maggot toppings and half the fan base on this board anyway actually seem to be in favor of it.

this is bad , this is very bad and it looks like its only going to get worse.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Negative . . .

Pax was smart to have next year's pick top-3 protected. We can pick up another young project to replace Chandler and Curry.

On the positive side, the Bulls will likely again finish 1 or 2 in Forbes's survey of the most profitable NBA teams, so all is not lost.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Negative
> ...


Great post, I especially like points 3-5.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Positive. 

Its going to be really easy to get Bulls tickets for less than FV.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I found the mood of this whole thread very interesting. If anybody asked the same question a week ago, I presumed that overall mood was very positive.

What changed all that?

Imminent departure of freaking Jamal. That's it.

I guess most people's prediction depended on their assessment of Jamal. If they were for retaining him, then everything looks grim now. If they are against retaining him, the future still looks bright.

For me, the impact of losing Jamal won't be that big of issue in the long haul. 

Just ask yourself one question first. Do you think this year's team is better than last year's team? I think we are so my overall mood is still positive.

Then ask another question yourself. Were you for Paxon's plan before or not? If you were, then no need to lose your faith in his plan for the franchise. If you didn't like him much before, then you will thin we are all doomed now that Jamal is gone.

Again, I still like what I see. Actually now Bulls are beginning to look like NBA teams IMO.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> I found the mood of this whole thread very interesting. If anybody asked the same question a week ago, I presumed that overall mood was very positive.
> 
> What changed all that?
> ...


I'm right there with you. I'm not sure why all this hyperbolic love for JC. I think most will be pleasantly surprised at the team this year. There was a quote earlier in the thread about Hassell and Hoiberg appreciating the team support they got when they went to Minnesota. Who do we think were not fostering the team atmosphere here in Chicago?! I'll venture that Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawdaddy were the two main reasons.....

....there are not enough balls on the floor for Jamal and Starbury to play together. Anyone notice that every team that trades Stephon gets immediately better? Jamal?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> I found the mood of this whole thread very interesting. If anybody asked the same question a week ago, I presumed that overall mood was very positive.
> 
> What changed all that?
> ...


How will this situation be different than when this team had Brand, Artest and Miller? 

The losing is going to be brutal.

Players are going to be blamed. Then they will be shipped out.

Curry will be the first.

We'll have a bunch of college all-Americans who play the game the "right" way, while the talented teams kick our ***.


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

Neutral, leaning positive.

The frontcourt should be better with a healthy Tyson and with Curry starting the season in better shape (recent reports notwithstanding). AD can still perform, and Harrington is at least as good as JYD. Anything Deke contributes will be a bonus. But it’s still up to Chandler and Curry to show they are real NBA players.

Noccini and Deng appear to provide a real upgrade at the SF spot, but neither has played in a regular season NBA game.

I get the impression Paxson looked at Gordon in the pre-draft workouts and saw the next Dwayne Wade. Unfortunately, Gordon doesn’t have the likes of Jones, Grant, Odom, and Butler as his supporting cast. If the Gordon / Hinrich backcourt proves ineffetive, I’ll be headed negative on this team pretty quickly.

I don’t see anyone taking Erob off our hands, and there isn’t much left to pick from in the big guard department. If he would get an attitude transplant, he could really help this team at SG, particularly when the Bulls face the likes of McGrady, Pierce, and Kobe. That’s a big if.

The jury is still out on Skiles. He’s a step up from the virgins Krause tabbed to run this preschool, but his limited prior experience is not enough to give me confidence he’s the guy to turn this thing around. I’m anxious to see how he does this season.

The biggest problem with this team is that it remains a combination of the very young and the very old, with no star caliber players. Maybe they will surprise us, but this is not a playoff team.

However, the best thing about this team, and one big reason I’m leaning positive, is that Paxson has positioned himself to make future improvements. He has several very talented young players and several expiring contracts that other teams will want. One of Gordon or Hinrich plus expiring contracts might be enough to land a player like Paul Pierce somewhere down the line. That’s something to look forward to.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Professor</b>!
> 
> However, the best thing about this team, and one big reason I’m leaning positive, is that Paxson has positioned himself to make future improvements. He has several very talented young players and several expiring contracts that other teams will want.


So did Krause.



> One of Gordon or Hinrich plus expiring contracts might be enough to land a player like Paul Pierce somewhere down the line. That’s something to look forward to.


Jalen Rose.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> How will this situation be different than when this team had Brand, Artest and Miller?
> 
> The losing is going to be brutal.
> ...


The same way the talented USA team is kicking the asses of the Euro teams who play the "right" way?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> The same way the talented USA team is kicking the asses of the Euro teams who play the "right" way?


Here's a great read on this point:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/basketball/columns/story?columnist=bucher_ric&id=1852530

Our guys have two weeks to learn what is pretty much a completely different sport to play vs. teams who've been together for years. 

Paxskilesdorf may want to build "Hoosiers" on Madison, but talent is and always will be the name of the game in the Association.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Paxskilesdorf may want to build "Hoosiers" on Madison, but talent is and always will be the name of the game in the Association.


So you're saying the Pistons had the best talent in the association on paper last season?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> The same way the talented USA team is kicking the asses of the Euro teams who play the "right" way?


That's an unfair compatison.

International ball is a different game than NBA ball.

Team USA had 2 weeks to play together against guys that play together quite frequently.


Talent wins games in the NBA. We just traded a very talented player, our most productive player and our most statistically efficient for absolutely nothing.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> That's an unfair compatison.
> ...


Isn't this an indictment of the whole team? This team won 23 games last year because this supposed very talented and most statistically efficient player, when compared to the league at large, is a pretty average guy. Doesn't say a whole lot for the rest of the team.

What's with all the hand-wringing over losing ANYBODY from a 23 win team?

Finally, talented TEAMS win games in the NBA. The Pistons are the prime example of that. Put together two teams, one with great athletes who don't play as a unit and have them play a team of slightly less athletic players who do function together as a unit and that slightly less athletic team will win 9 times out of 10. It takes both talent AND teamwork to win in this league.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't this an indictment of the whole team? This team won 23 games last year because this supposed very talented and most statistically efficient player, when compared to the league at large, is a pretty average guy. Doesn't say a whole lot for the rest of the team.
> ...


Talented, VETERAN teams are the ones that typically win in the NBA. 

We dump our talented young players before they become VETERANS (Brand, Artest, Miller, now Crawford).

You could use the same argument to justify trading Brand, Artest and Miller, don't you see? Don't you see them kicking butt on other teams? Why? Because they are talented and now veteran players.

Youth usually does not win, no matter how talented, unless you have a truly special player. The Bulls don't have that.

This team will always suck if we don't develop our young talent. Part of this formula is not blowing the whole thing up every two years.

Next year at this time, who will be the scapegoat for the losing?

Curry?
Deng?
Hinrich?
Chandler?

All of them? Maybe we should start a poll. 

This mindset is self defeating.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> That's an unfair compatison.
> 
> International ball is a different game than NBA ball.
> ...


My point is that the USA team is playing like 5 individuals, and are getting spanked by inferior talent because that inferior talent is playing as a team. Same way the Pistons beat the Lakers.

Previous Bulls rebuilding teams did not always have 5 guys out on the court pulling in the same direction. They are now closer to that than they have been since the dynasty. I believe that will make a bigger difference than some here think or are willing to admit.

We'll see.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> So you're saying the Pistons had the best talent in the association on paper last season?


They didn't have a player of Shaq's or Kobe's or Duncan's magnitude, but they did have a top 5 or 6 player at every spot but the 3, and very good depth (asset accumulation). 

Two questions for you: 1. Wouldn't you admit that over the last 50+ years of NBA champions, teams like the 2004 Pistons are much more the exception than the rule?and 2. Can you say with a straight face that any player on the Bulls with the possible exception of Hinrich is headed toward being a top 5 or 6 player at his position in the near or distant future? Modeling ourselves after the Pistons makes precious little sense if not.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> It takes both talent AND teamwork to win in this league.



That is the bottome line. 

Thanks goodness we are only two elements from winning!:grinning: 

I know you are saying - We are talented .....No, We are Potentially very talent.

Well, our guys are learning to play as a team.............Again, Learning.


It's a long road, and it just got longer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> So you're saying the Pistons had the best talent in the association on paper last season?


The Pistons didn't have a superstar, which is usually a requirement to win an NBA title.

They did have several all stars (b wallace, r wallace) or near all star (r hamilton) players. I think its almost time to put Billups in the near all-star group as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> My point is that the USA team is playing like 5 individuals, and are getting spanked by inferior talent because that inferior talent is playing as a team. Same way the Pistons beat the Lakers.
> 
> ...


I agree with you Kneepad. A winning team can't just play like 5 individuals.

But, in the NBA, there is a huge barrier to entry when it comes to talent. If you don't have it, you don't win, no matter how sound a team game you play.

There will never be an NBA version of the Princeton Tigers.

You need the talent, and we just traded one of our most talented player for NOTHING. 

Its the NOTHING thing that really gets me.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

POSITIVE :

I always have to remain positive EVERY off-season, regardless of how the season went. I always build my hopes up for the next season and NOW, once again it's up to the bulls to build em further or bring em back down.

I'm excited to see a healthy CHANDLER and DENG play the forward positions. Both are LONG and capable of blocking ALOT of shots. I'm also excited because DENG can be a DEADLY shooter in this league and we haven't had that @ small forward in a LONG time. It's CONTRACT season so CHANDLER should be BEASTING all year long.

I'm also excited to see KIRK and GORDON play the guard positions. I LOVE KIRK's game and he's only gonna get BETTER this season. HOPEFULLY GORDON provides everything we're missing in guard play. Penetration, Good FT percentage, Smart decisions.

Their's a REASON they were drafted #3 & #7, to provide instant contributions. They should both average ATLEAST 10ppg this year, at the VERY least.

ANDRES NIONICI is the QUESTION mark. I'm excited to see his game also. Hopefully he'll be a BIG surprise for our team this upcoming season.

And finally, EDDY CURRY. I honestly believe this HIS YEAR PERIOD. If he doesn't get it done and prove himself by atleast ALL-STAR BREAK, he's gone. I have no doubt paxon would ship him out if that WERE the case. He should average 18ppg EASY this year and ATLEAST 9rpg.

So yes I'm very POSITIVE about this season.

CURRY / CHANDLER / DENG / GORDON / HINRICH are the FUTURE of this team. If they all play WELL this year, this should be our team for a LONG time.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Talented, VETERAN teams are the ones that typically win in the NBA.
> ...


I fully agree with your assertion that this team is a revolving door of talent. That is my single biggest gripe with the ownership of this club. Since the breakup of the Dynasty, this team has yet to reatain ANY of their draft picks (first OR second rounders) past their rookie deals. None. Somethings wrong with that. Either the picks are bad, in which case you've got to question their ability to evaluate talent or we're not adequate enough at developing that talent in an efficient manner. Either way is not a good approach to winning.

And the guy who'll probably take most of the heat for our losing will be Curry followed by Gordon (Hinrich will actually get moderate heat too!).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Going round in circles.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 1. Wouldn't you admit that over the last 50+ years of NBA champions, teams like the 2004 Pistons are much more the exception than the rule?


I agree with flash that usually it's a combination of talent and team play that produces NBA champions. Certainly the most talented team does not always win. I don't believe the Bulls have lost any immensely talented players (top 5 at their position) since Paxson took over.



> 2. Can you say with a straight face that any player on the Bulls with the possible exception of Hinrich is headed toward being a top 5 or 6 player at his position in the near or distant future?


Most of the Bulls players are too young to say with any degree of certainty. The best we can do is say they still have the potential to do so. Curry, if he ever gets his head on straight, could certainly. Hinrich, Chandler, Gordon, Deng, all have that potential as well.

I know for certain Crawford was not (unless his career curve takes a very sharp turn upwards in the next year or two).



> Modeling ourselves after the Pistons makes precious little sense if not.


What would your alternative plan be?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I agree with flash that usually it's a combination of talent and team play that produces NBA champions. Certainly the most talented team does not always win. I don't believe the Bulls have lost any immensely talented players (top 5 at their position) since Paxson took over.
> 
> ...


Do you just completely discount the statistical evaluation of players?

I see Crawford at #74 in the league in efficiency and #66 in approximate value in his first year of playing heavy, frequent minutes as a huge plus. I take that he’s improved fairly dramatically over the last 3 years as a huge plus. 

There are warts to his game… but why are we not unhappy that this team has dumped its best player for NOTHING?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you just completely discount the statistical evaluation of players?
> ...


Doesn't it say anything to you that there were 73 players more efficient that Jamal? That means that each team, on average, would have two to three players more efficient than Jamal. If this is our best player, wouldn't that mean that this team is in a whole world of trouble??? Oh, wait, it is!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Doesn't it say anything to you that there were 73 players more efficient that Jamal? That means that each team, on average, would have two to three players more efficient than Jamal. If this is our best player, wouldn't that mean that this team is in a whole world of trouble??? Oh, wait, it is!


Hmm...maybe I do like statistics!

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Doesn't it say anything to you that there were 73 players more efficient that Jamal? That means that each team, on average, would have two to three players more efficient than Jamal. If this is our best player, wouldn't that mean that this team is in a whole world of trouble??? Oh, wait, it is!


Given that it was his first year playing heavy minutes and has improved every season, I think it is a plus.

It certainly does not scream get this guy off the team no matter what it takes.

And yes, it is a sad sign that our best player is 74. Why do you think we suck?  

Who is going to fill that void this year? We are going to suck more!


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Do you just completely discount the statistical evaluation of players?


No, I don't. Actually I track statistics more closely than most here, I'd bet. And I place a fairly high value on player efficiency.



> I see Crawford at #74 in the league in efficiency and #66 in approximate value in his first year of playing heavy, frequent minutes as a huge plus. I take that he’s improved fairly dramatically over the last 3 years as a huge plus.
> 
> There are warts to his game… but why are we not unhappy that this team has dumped its best player for NOTHING?


No, I'm not especially happy about that. But I'm not broken up about it either. It's better than the alternative, which was committing middle-to-big money to a very inconsistent player for the next 6 years [EDIT: sorry, 7 years!]. Pax is now going to have some money to play with in the next few years-- let's see what he uses it for to replace Jamal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm right there with you. I'm not sure why all this hyperbolic love for JC. I think most will be pleasantly surprised at the team this year. There was a quote earlier in the thread about Hassell and Hoiberg appreciating the team support they got when they went to Minnesota. Who do we think were not fostering the team atmosphere here in Chicago?! I'll venture that Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawdaddy were the two main reasons.....
> ...


i'm pretty sure the suns were worse last year without stephon...the trade befoe that marbury was tradd for the best pg in the nba


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Negative.

I do not think the Bulls accomplished much by trading Jamal Crawford. It comes down to trading him for someone to take JYD's contract. I do not think this makes the Bulls a better team next year. I am now leaning toward staying negative, until something wows me. Maybe Curry weighing in at 285 to start camp will sway me.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

postive.

new players = new excitement.

you guys can be happy that there is no relegtion or something to a lower league, like its the case in any kind of sports in europe.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Auntie Em! Auntie Em!"



i'm still pretty much neutral, same as i've been for some time. losing Jamal -- or any player off a 23-win team, for that matter -- isn't going to make me lose any sleep at night.

yeah, Jamal was the leading scorer, second-leading assist man, yadda yadda yadda. that still makes him the tallest person at the midget convention. 

Eddy being, well, Eddy is disappointing (but not particularly surprising) to me. trading him wouldn't be the end of the world either.

so, any hopes for dramatic improvement come from Tyson, Kirk, Ben, and/or Luol:

Player projections (POSITIVE) --
*Tyson can be a Larry Nance-type of player, and that ain't bad at all. 
* Kirk has the talent and skills to be Sam Cassell (minus the whining). :yes:
* Gordon has a nice J and can create his own shot, sort of a wealthy man's Jason Terry...except he understands the fundamentals of team defense. 
* Deng has the skills and game to be another Doug Chrisite -- not great at anything, but pretty good at several.

Player projections (NEGATIVE) --
* if Tyson can't stay healthy, he's the second coming of Marcus Camby. :sigh:
*Kirk's ceiling lies somewhat higher than what his detractors believe, but how much?
* Gordon could be more Johnny Dawkins than Vinny Johnson. 
(FTR, i'm not nearly as high on Gordon as some people here, though i hope i'm wrong.) 
* Deng could be Eric Williams or former knick Kenny Walker.  
(also FTR, Deng didn't thrill me either, though i liked him a lot more at 7 than i would have at 3.)

but these guys have talent and can contribute. how much remains the $56 million dollar question. like i said, i'm still pretty much neutral, same as i've been for some time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TS we are pretty much on the same page.


In the grand scheme of things, I guess that "We represent...The Lollipop Guild."










"and we'd like to welcome you to Munch-kin-Land...]


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> In the grand scheme of things, I guess that "We represent...The Lollipop Guild."
> 
> 
> ...


TB, where'd you get that picture of the Bulls backcourt?


----------

