# Sam Smith-Retooling



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...020819samsmith.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Throwing this out for discussion. We might have passionate opinions one way or the other but it is worth discussing. 

IMO this does not sound like Sam Smith.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think he ignores the fact that Clark does not like to lift weights or practice (by his own admission) and that, coupled with his habit, might make him a bad fit for this young team. Also, if the Bulls hope to give Curry & Chandler big time developmental minutes (which would seem to be the case) then we don't have enough playing time to offer to a guy like Clark. Thats why Krause picked up Blount. I'm sure Fizer, Bagaric, Baxter, and Blount all want time behind the kids too. Smith really seems to be bashing Krause for the hell of it. I don't see why he is complaining, the Marshall signing is reason for happiness, not *****ing. 

Also, someone want to explain to me how Marshall and Fizer are similar players? I don't see it. It seems to me that if your going to hire a writer for a major newspaper you should at least get a guy who knows the sport he is reporting on.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Questions for Smith*

If I was sitting next the the bar with Smith, I would ask him the following questions:

Would Keon be more interested in playing for the Bulls than the Kings? Would you sign him if you had to give him a 6 year contract?

Could Keon be more of an influence on guys like C&C and JWill than Weber, Divac and Bibby?

Don't Blount and Marshall take pressure off C&C?

How has MJ disappointed as the Wiz GM?

Why has Doleac never been able to earn 20 minutes a game considering he has never played with a good C?

Whom would you rather have as a backup C: Blount or Doleac?

What the hell is the difference between a bona fide NBA starter and a regular NBA starter. Why are Rose and Marshall the latter but not the former?

You say that the Bulls could have signed Keon and '... the Bulls still would have been able to add Marshall'. How the hell is this possible?

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

Without these questions answered, I will have to assume that Smith wrote this article while smoking with Keon?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Outside of his uninformed opinion about Jordan as a GM, a blatant shot at the guy who made Chicago and is now gone, Smith hits upon a very real criticism of Krause. He is too afraid to take the blame and for taking a risk that has immediate consequences. Trading Brand for Chandler was not an immediate consequence risk. In fact, it was the opposite. With Brand and the addition of a 4th pick, the expectations would have continued to rise. Instead, he went with Chandler and was able to tell every one to wait a few years. In a few years, he can go to Plan N and delay once again.

His observation about Fizer and Marshall is correct because they are both really 3/4 tweeners. Marshall is a better player though. There has been some talk about how he was able to contribute on the Jazz and how that will not translate to the Bulls. I am of the camp that believes there is some truth to that. The Jazz are a disciplined team, and there is a specific role for a defender like Marshall to fill. With the Bulls being a much less experienced team, and less disciplined Marshall's contributions probably are going to fall flat in that area. His rebounding and scoring should stay constant though, and he tops Fizer in those categories.

I am surprised Smith did not bring up the JC situation. I guess he is saving that for a future column.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

LOL! Exactly Johnston, well put.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

*Re: Questions for Smith*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> If I was sitting next the the bar with Smith, I would ask him the following questions:
> 
> Whom would you rather have as a backup C: Blount or Doleac?


I think almost everyone would choose Doleac. Especially for the triangle.



> What the hell is the difference between a bona fide NBA starter and a regular NBA starter. Why are Rose and Marshall the latter but not the former?


He was talking about the 9 1st rounders the Bulls have had since 1998 not producing a bona fide starter. he acknowledges Marshall and Rose, but notes they were traded for.



> You say that the Bulls could have signed Keon and '... the Bulls still would have been able to add Marshall'. How the hell is this possible?


You would have to assume a trade. Or possibly in Doleac's case he could have been had instead of Blount.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't consider Fizer a 3/4. He is a 4 period IMO. Sure, he is a little bit of a tweener as a 4,but he did play primarily center in college. Marshall is a 3/4, but really more of a three. He is skinny and tall whereas Fizer is thick and not so tall. I don't see much of a comparison...


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't consider Fizer a 3/4. He is a 4 period IMO. Sure, he is a little bit of a tweener as a 4,but he did play primarily center in college. Marshall is a 3/4, but really more of a three. He is skinny and tall whereas Fizer is thick and not so tall. I don't see much of a comparison...


Fizer is a tweener due to lack of height. Marshall is a tweener due to lack of size. They are both tweeners, which is where the comparison comes in. Calling Fizer a 4 period flies in the face of everything Krause has said about the guy since he drafted him. Hell, Krause played him at 3 for a whole season. I would not call Marshall more of a 3. I think he is truly a tweener. PF skills in a SF body.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Questions for Smith*



> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> I think almost everyone would choose Doleac. Especially for the triangle.
> ...


I'm not everybody, but I'll take Blount over Doleac. And neither would get me too excited.

You are correct about the bona fide starter issue. Sam said, "With nine No. 1 draft picks since the 1998 championship, the Bulls don't have one bona fide NBA starter from the draft on their roster." This is a little misleading in that Artest was turned into Rose, Brand got us Chandler, we drafted at the end of the 1st round in 98, and no one is bona fide starter from the 2002 draft. I will say that the 2000 draft is looking like a disaster in terms of the overall quality and what the Bulls ended up with. By the end of this year or next year at the latest, I expect that five (Brand, Artest, Chandler, Curry, JWill or Craw) of the nine players drafted will be bona fide starters.

Sam's idea of the Bulls ending up with Marshall and Keon is pure fantasy.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Outside of his uninformed opinion about Jordan as a GM, a blatant shot at the guy who made Chicago and is now gone, Smith hits upon a very real criticism of Krause. He is too afraid to take the blame and for taking a risk that has immediate consequences. Trading Brand for Chandler was not an immediate consequence risk. In fact, it was the opposite. With Brand and the addition of a 4th pick, the expectations would have continued to rise. Instead, he went with Chandler and was able to tell every one to wait a few years. In a few years, he can go to Plan N and delay once again.
> 
> His observation about Fizer and Marshall is correct because they are both really 3/4 tweeners. Marshall is a better player though. There has been some talk about how he was able to contribute on the Jazz and how that will not translate to the Bulls. I am of the camp that believes there is some truth to that. The Jazz are a disciplined team, and there is a specific role for a defender like Marshall to fill. With the Bulls being a much less experienced team, and less disciplined Marshall's contributions probably are going to fall flat in that area. His rebounding and scoring should stay constant though, and he tops Fizer in those categories.
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, I don't expect anyone to come out passionately in favor of Smith's article, but I guess I could be wrong.

It's true that in many ways Clark might have been a better guy to have, since he can legitimately play center, but it's not like we broke the bank on Marshall or anything, and he filled a need too.

I don't see how we would have signed both Clark and Marshall considering both of them got the exception and we had only one to give.

At the moment, I think we look to be in pretty good shape heading into the season. We've still got pretty big questions, mostly about whether Crawford and JWill can coexist and ERob will be healthy, but those will sort themselves out.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

Donyell Marshall played SF with the Jazz the last two years. He's a SF with some PF skills. Fizer is a PF with some SF skills. Just because two players are 'tweeners' doesn't mean they are carbon copies of each other.

The three SF's we have signed to big money, Rose, Eddie Robinson, and Marshall, all can play more then one position (except maybe EROB, though he says his best position is SG.)

I'm sure we'll see lineups this year with Rose at SG, EROB at SF, and Marshall at PF. 

With regards to Keon Clark, if a guy his age hasn't realized he should stop using drugs, and he's stupid enough to drive while using them, I don't blame Krause for not wanting Keon on the team. The last thing the Bulls need is Chandler or Curry developing hanging out with Keon and developing a drug habit. 

If we had Jordan on this team to keep Keon in line ala Rodman, that'd be one thing. But we don't, and even if we did, to steal a line from Pitino, he'd be old and grey. After all, he couldn't even get the Washington Piss into the playoffs.

Doleac a big upgrade over Corie Blount? LOL.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

Sam Smith is a dope who obviously knows very little about NBA basketball.

First, Keon Clark was not acquired for several reasons. For one, he's a center who was looking for a big dollar long term contract. Anyone with half of brain would know that Eddy Curry is earmarked for that spot and the Bulls weren't willing to pay top dollar for a future back up center. Just because Keon expressed interest in playing for the Bulls and that he's from Danville don't mean a thing. If history hasn't taught Smith anything, he should have learned from the Antonio Davis debacle that free agents and their agents will say and use anything to solicit an offer. Remember when Antonio Davis claimed that he was interested in playing for the Bulls because his wife's parents were from Montgomery, IL (a suburb of Chicago)? Then Davis came out with those ridiculous contract demands and was insulted when Krause offerred him only what he was worth. Lucky for Davis, the Raptors were stupid enough to pay him what he wanted and tie up a ton of precious cap space in the process. The second reason, may have been because of his recent marijuana charge. If this impacted his decision in any way, I take my hat off to Krause for trying to maintain social integrity and responsibility within the Bulls' organization.

Next ... Fizer and Marshall are completely different types of players. Marshall is a tall SF who likes to mix up down low and can pull up from the perimeter. Fizer is a beefy PF who realistically only plays the post (with the exception of an occasion 15-20 footer and a few 3 attempts every now any then). In fact their styles of play couldn't be more opposite from one another. Someone mentioned that they're alike because they are both tweeners; either too short or too skinny to play PF or too slow too play SF. What's ironic is that Marcus is listed at 6-9 and 262lbs, and Elton Brand is listed at 6'8" and 265lbs (and Elton is listed as a F/C). So I am not understanding why Marcus isn't a true PF (from a physical perspective). 

Next ... Why was Marshall acquired when the Bulls are already paying big money for the same position? Here's a thought Genius ... perhaps he's planning on dumping ERobbery someday. Perhaps ERob hasn't panned out as he expected. Krause is a smart man, but he doesn't have a crystal ball. Any idiot can sit back and second guess someone with the benefit of hindsight. Like it or not, the Bulls could use help at almost every position. But with the acquistions of Marshall, Blount, Baxtor, Mason, and JWill, the bulls have decent players at every position with just those guys alone. Marshall can play SF or PF (mostly SF), Blount can play C. Baxtor can play PF. Mason can play SG, and JWill PG. 
As far as starters are concerned, Marshall fills an immediate need there too and doesn't infringe upon the long term development of the Bulls' current nucleus of young prospects. As we know, Eddy is the future C of the Bulls. Tyson is the future PF. Jalen has the SG locked up. And JC and JWill will fight it out for PG honors. The only hole in the roster was SF. While I agree that Rose is capable of playing SF, his natural and most effective position is SG. 

As for his comparisons to other GMs in the league. All I will say is that there are mitigating circumstances to every situation. Also there are several ways to rebuild a team. Team's like the Nets, Celtics, and the Pistons have had several years (many more than 5) to develop their teams either through the draft or through free agency. It's completey unfair to compare Dallas and Sacramento's progress to that of the Bulls as the owners of those two teams spend money like it's water and their payrolls are nearly double that of the Bulls ($63.3M for Dallas, $68.7M for Sactown compared to $34.6M for the Bulls). That was a really really asute comparison Sammy. Oh yeah, what's even more ridiculous is only one of the 5 teams that he compared to the Bulls have made the NBA Finals in the last decade. Again, what a moron.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Well...

Sam Smith's article is a slam against Krause.

However, he's absolutely right.

If Curry and Chandler don't play well, the team is going to have blount and bags to back them up. If one of them gets hurt, we really hurt.

People here are great fans of the team, but I think they believe Curry and Chandler are better than they are at this stage of the game. They're NOT shaq and duncan, that's for sure.

I tried to start a thread suggesting that Curry and Chandler might underperform peoples' (here on these boards) expectations, and the response was "great, I'll take those numbers" without considering that 20 wins is the result.

Watch the team play, and if you see a guy dribbling for 5-10 seconds of the clock, you know they don't have a clue how to play winning NBA basketball.

We can agree the team has its best roster in the too-long rebuliding period. But they didn't draft the next Larry Bird - a superstar who will take the team from worst to first in one season.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> If Curry and Chandler don't play well, the team is going to have blount and bags to back them up. If one of them gets hurt, we really hurt.


Backup centers do not grow on trees. Yes, I'm sure that it was a high priority for Krause if he could do it. Lakers have 3-peated without a back up Center. Their fans are still concerned. They have used players like a Blount to fill-in.

Look last year's FA crop. Todd McCullach ($30+M), Calvin Booth ($30+M), Evan Eschmeyer ($15+M) all cleaned up. 

This, James of Seattle and Keon got the full exception for mulitple years. From HoopsHype, it looks like Doleac got more than the $1.4 we used on Blount. 

Krause can be faulted for much but I don't see how he can be faulted for using our exceptions this year.

Given what we needed, Marshall and Blount fit very nicely.

If BOTH Chandler AND Curry are not playing competitive NBA basketball this season, you might as well stick a fork in us. We're done. No matter whom Krause picked up post draft.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

I agree that many Bulls' fans tend to think that Chandler and Curry are better (or further along in their development) than they really are. However, I doubt that any Bull fan would compare either of them to Duncan or Shaq. Having said that, I believe that Curry is more developed for his position than Chandler. They have a long way to go, but there's definite signs of promise for both of them. 

I expect Krause and Cartright to pull back the reigns quite a bit this season on Chandler. However, I don't expect that to be the case with Eddy. IMO, Eddy should play as minutes as possible (which in most cases will be until he fouls out). However, I don't the Bulls are relying too heavily on either. The post will be defended by committee and as I've previously stated, I don't expect Tyson to play as much as he did last season. Many of you will not see the logic in what seems to be backward progression, but I believe that will be the direction in which the Bulls go.

I can't see anyone on this team dribbling in one place for 15 secs. We've already got rid of the biggest culprit of this, Ron Artest. If by chance it does happen, it'll be solely because of poor coaching.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Why is it so hard for people to admit that Sam Smith has a point when he criticizes Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Why is it so hard for people to admit that Sam Smith has a point when he criticizes Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?


First, Krause has shown he will take a risk. Drafting Pippen, Bags, and Crawford were risks. Trades for Rodman, Rose and Chandler were risks. I do think he is too unwilling in general to trade his draft picks, but this was not covered in the article.

Second, it's a lot of print to criticize the Bulls about not pursuing Keon and much of it is crap such as Doleac is a difference maker.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Why is it so hard for people to admit that Sam Smith has a point when he criticizes Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?


I'm not sure that means? "Criticize Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?"

When you trade the only real marketable player on your team (Elton Brand) for an high school phenom ... isn't that taking a huge risk and inviting blame or criticism? When you refuse to sign a player who was voted as one of the Top 50 NBA players of all time (wrongfully so, I might add) and who is beloved by all of Chicago? Isn't that taking a big risk and inviting criticism? The same goes for the other role players and head coach from the 90's dynasty, Krause refused to re-sign any of them. Isn't that taking a risk? Or what about when he traded for the draft rights of Freshman Jamal Crawford, wasn't that risky and inviting of criticism as well? Although I don't think it was risky at all, many naysayers did at the time ...when Krause traded 4 of his 5 starters for a player who was perceived to be a disgruntled cry baby. Many reporters including Sam Smith criticized that trade as well, but quickly back peddled when the Bulls won their first game with Rose. 

To say that Krause doesn't take "true risks" is ridiculous. To say that he shucks blames in absurb. If anything, he makes more controversial risky moves than any GM I know. If you can name another, I am dieing to hear it. 

I'm sure that some of Sam Smith's points are valid. But overall, he doesn't have a clue about running an NBA organization. He's a reporter who's job is to sit back and second guess every move that Krause makes. He'll also be the first guy to kiss Krause's butt when the Bulls are winning more games than anyone expected this season.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*One last point - Krause and risks*

Krause is going for vindication not an extra couple years on the job. Krause gets vindicated by turning the Bulls being a championship calliber team. And, IMHO, he has already taken calculated risks to achieve just that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> First, Krause has shown he will take a risk. Drafting Pippen, Bags, and Crawford were risks. Trades for Rodman, Rose and Chandler were risks. I do think he is too unwilling in general to trade his draft picks, but this was not covered in the article.


Krause didn't draft Crawford. He drafted Chris Mihm and traded him for Crawford. We might actually be better off with Mihm at this point.



> Second, it's a lot of print to criticize the Bulls about not pursuing Keon and much of it is crap such as Doleac is a difference maker.


When Curry gets 2 fouls in the first minutes of games, kiss those games goodbye.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I agree that many Bulls' fans tend to think that Chandler and Curry are better (or further along in their development) than they really are. However, I doubt that any Bull fan would compare either of them to Duncan or Shaq. Having said that, I believe that Curry is more developed for his position than Chandler. They have a long way to go, but there's definite signs of promise for both of them.
> 
> I expect Krause and Cartright to pull back the reigns quite a bit this season on Chandler. However, I don't expect that to be the case with Eddy. IMO, Eddy should play as minutes as possible (which in most cases will be until he fouls out). However, I don't the Bulls are relying too heavily on either. The post will be defended by committee and as I've previously stated, I don't expect Tyson to play as much as he did last season. Many of you will not see the logic in what seems to be backward progression, but I believe that will be the direction in which the Bulls go.
> ...


Do you think the team would be better with Brand and Mihm instead of Chandler and Crawford?


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Why is it so hard for people to admit that Sam Smith has a point when he criticizes Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?


Because there is no evidence to suggest this is true.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My 50th post. Couldn't resist 



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> I'm not sure that means? "Criticize Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?"
> 
> ...


What you call taking risks, others call stupidity


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Trading Brand was a copout. If he kept Brand he would not have been able to delay fans expectations about actually producing a winning product. Taking Chandler allowed him to deflect blame on the fact he has a roster of two HS kids. 

Taking no risks and getting Blount and Marshall speaks of this same trait of deflecting blame. 

With his signings he has once again shown that he is more interested in deflecting than taking a risk. The fact that you see taking Chandler such a big risk is that you have been drinking from the PR Kool-Aid Krause has been mixing. Red Kool-Aid that is, not cherry.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Taking no risks and getting Blount and Marshall.


Ok, set the clock back to the day after the draft. What should have been done? Specifics only, please.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

Maybe Krause actually thought trading Brand was a good trade. Everyone knows what kind of Kool-aid some people are drinking.

It's sad that Jordan cheated himself out of at least one more championship by trying to bully Reinsdorf into firing Krause. And it's even sadder to see people drinking the Jordan Kool-Aid and be too blinded to realize that MJ screwed himself when he retired from the Bulls. 

Krause never had the power to force Jordan out. Reinsorf always sat in on the bigger negotiations. Anyone who thinks MJ didn't cause the breakup of the Bulls needs electroshock therapy to bring them back to reality.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Not overstating the value of Fizer and Crawford in potential trades is a start. 

Negotiations with Clark could have been fruitful, especially after his arrest, the Bulls could have shown some interest to him if he could convince them it was a mistake. He was a player the Bulls could have gotten.

These are the obvious things that we know have been reported on. I am not going to get into specifics.

I can look at what was done by the Bulls over the last 5 years and I can equate that with Krause's moves being done to deflect blame.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> We can agree the team has its best roster in the too-long rebuliding period. But they didn't draft the next Larry Bird - a superstar who will take the team from worst to first in one season.


How long should it take to rebuild?


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> I can look at what was done by the Bulls over the last 5 years and I can equate that with Krause's moves being done to deflect blame.


Ironically - Krause gets about 99.9% of the blame for everything. The few people at these boards that defend him are the only people I have encountered that don't blame him. I'm surprised he doesn't get blamed for the Cubs.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Not overstating the value of Fizer and Crawford in potential trades is a start.


This is a guess at best. Any chance that you are talking about the posters on this board?



> Negotiations with Clark could have been fruitful


Ok, I agree. But, perhaps Krause talked to his agent and was rebuffed.



> [Keon] was a player the Bulls could have gotten.


Could and Would are a long way apart.



> I can look at what was done by the Bulls over the last 5 years and I can equate that with Krause's moves being done to deflect blame.


This would be off-topic. Sam was pretty clear that he felt that "the Bulls have allowed the momentum of their successful draft and the chance for a much improved season to evaporate" and gave the Blount and Marshall signing a D.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Trading Brand was a copout. If he kept Brand he would not have been able to delay fans expectations about actually producing a winning product. Taking Chandler allowed him to deflect blame on the fact he has a roster of two HS kids.
> 
> Taking no risks and getting Blount and Marshall speaks of this same trait of deflecting blame.
> ...



BCH, as usual I agree with most of your points (i.e. trading Brand was a copout, etc.). But you only things you point are moves that can't be fixed, and your list of solutions is rather short:

A: Fire Krause (not gonna happen-you have a better shot at Bush)

or B: Boycott the Bulls in protest

Obviously we wouldn't be here if we chose the latter. 

Please forget about the Jordan-era Bulls because they are long gone. I don't think Krause has made a "horrible move" in the past couple years. My only minor complaint was picking Bagaric over Big Jake, but it wasn't that much of a disaster.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Why is it so hard for people to admit that Sam Smith has a point when he criticizes Krause for taking the path where he can deflect blame, instead of going for it and taking a true risk?


Like trading Brand for Chandler?

Or trying to swap for an as-yet unproven Jermaine Oneal?

Like signing Erob?


You bash him for signing E-rob when he said he thought he might have star potential, and yet you say he doesnt' take risks.


It doesn't make sense.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Several reporters and columnists have stated that Krause's asking price on Fizer and Crawford have been too high. I can only go on that, take that for what it is worth.

The Bulls made no noise about going after Clark and it was reported Krause showed no interest. Doesn't sound like he made any silent overtures. Would or could, it doesn't sound like he made an effort. if he did, and for some reason it has been reported several times that he didn't, then my criticism in this case is unfair. 

Drafting JWill was a successful draft, but the momentum was lost when nothing was determined about Crawford. He isn't a vet PG. He was the former Mid Lottery pick that was tagged to be the PG of the future for the Bulls. Not doing anything about him, other than to say he can play SG and then going out and picking up another SF to push Rose to SG, kills any of the momentum the Bulls had.

If Krause had been able to move Crawford, and send Fizer packing as well, he could have shown that his plan of shotgun rebuilding is starting to coalesce. As it stands right now, no one really knows what he is trying to do with his players. Can you honestly say you do? He now has Rose and Marshall. two soon to be 30 year olds and a bunch of question marks. He should have consolidated some of the talent yet he hasn't, and let many situations ambiguous that should be resolved as soon as possible. The door is open for bad chemistry, and it is going to painful to extricate the cancers once they start to metastasize.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> Like trading Brand for Chandler?
> ...


I clearly explained making moves like that removes any level of expectation. How can he claim to have failed when there were zero expectations. He can push the day of having rebuilt the team to the future indefinitely with the types of moves he continues to make. How else does he qualify a 21 win season a success, 5 years into rebuilding?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Trading Brand was a copout. If he kept Brand he would not have been able to delay fans expectations about actually producing a winning product. Taking Chandler allowed him to deflect blame on the fact he has a roster of two HS kids.


You honestly believe Krause is more interested in deflecting blame than proving to all his naysayers that he can build a winnning team?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Don't forget that Artest was our only SF last summer coming off a dissappointing sophmore season. Erob mad a lot of sense at the time since we're FAR from being an athletic team.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I label the ERob signing horrible. He was an unproven player then and his injury doesn't make it any better. He is the type of player Krause could sign and throw out there, because he averaged 7ppg. What is expected of him? The Bulls just signed another SF 1 year after signing ERob and no one argues that it was done out of necessity. Even when Jalen Rose's best position is SF.

EDIT: Let me also add that drafting Fizer to play the 3 was a horrible mistake as well.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> You honestly believe Krause is more interested in deflecting blame than proving to all his naysayers that he can build a winnning team?
> ...


You mean his actions do not speak louder than his words? There is plenty of proof that what Jerry does is in his own self interests, mainly pertaining to his ego and wanting all the credit when he doesn't deserve it and deflecting all the blame when it is his to shoulder completely.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Not overstating the value of Fizer and Crawford in potential trades is a start.
> 
> Negotiations with Clark could have been fruitful, especially after his arrest, the Bulls could have shown some interest to him if he could convince them it was a mistake. He was a player the Bulls could have gotten.


And after he did, you would have been here saying: 'How desperate is Krause to build some momentum behind his stalled attempts at rebuilding?'


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Several reporters and columnists have stated that Krause's asking price on Fizer and Crawford have been too high. I can only go on that, take that for what it is worth.
> 
> The Bulls made no noise about going after Clark and it was reported Krause showed no interest. Doesn't sound like he made any silent overtures. Would or could, it doesn't sound like he made an effort. if he did, and for some reason it has been reported several times that he didn't, then my criticism in this case is unfair.
> ...


Once again I agree. I've taken so much heat on these boards for the mere mention of a Crawford trade and being called a hater. I was ready to invest my heart into Jamal until the day we recieved the 2nd pick. I don't hate Jamal at all, but I agree that Krause's inability to move Jamal and/or Marcus was his biggest mistake.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Several reporters and columnists have stated that Krause's asking price on Fizer and Crawford have been too high. I can only go on that, take that for what it is worth.


Well, reports indicated that Krause asked for Mike Miller for Fizer. Craw seemed at best to be worth maybe an 11th pick in this year's draft. Is that too high? 

If this was the best that he can do, it doesn't hurt to bring everybody to camp and see what happens. Crawford's value has to go up if he stays healthy and plays as well as he did at the very end of last season. Fizer is worth next to nothing at this point but he could be worth a lot with slight improvement. 

I do expect some trades to happen in the next year but trust Krause will figure out the best time. You can have a fire sale at any time and get rid of players on their rookie contracts.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

You don't trade young players you like just to consolidate talent if you don't like the trade. The Wizards did that, and traded away Ben Wallace. The Tyson Chandler trade had already turned out better then that pathetic piece of history in Washington's front office moves. Krause is continuing to prove himself one of the best judges of talent in the league. As mentioned above, the only complete embarassing miss since MJ retired was the Bagaric pick over Tsakalidis. And even then there were mitigating circumstances (Jake's contract) that made the pick more understandable.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> There is plenty of proof


*No, there isn't*. When pressed for it you refer to vague reporters and press clippings.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hps</b>!
> You don't trade young players you like just to consolidate talent if you don't like the trade. The Wizards did that, and traded away Ben Wallace. The Tyson Chandler trade had already turned out better then that pathetic piece of history in Washington's front office moves. Krause is continuing to prove himself one of the best judges of talent in the league. As mentioned above, the only complete embarassing miss since MJ retired was the Bagaric pick over Tsakalidis. And even then there were mitigating circumstances (Jake's contract) that made the pick more understandable.


HPS,

This has nothing to do with the Wizards front office moves. You are welcome to make comparrisons. I have said ERob and Fizer were misses. My criticism of Krause is less about hits and misses but moves that deflect blame.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

What is your point BCH? I understrand that you hate Krause, but what is the point in discussing this? You say E-Rob was a horrible signing, but if Krause didn't sign him, you would say that he didn't take a risk. Krause can't win in your eyes....


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Trading Brand was a copout. If he kept Brand he would not have been able to delay fans expectations about actually producing a winning product. Taking Chandler allowed him to deflect blame on the fact he has a roster of two HS kids.


This is a valid point. Yes, it was a gamble to trade Brand, but it was also a copout in that it gave Krause another chance when his prior efforts had clearly failed.

Every time the Bulls have started to gel and win even a modest amount of games over the past four years, it's signaled a major move was imminent. Every one of them was a short-term loser in the W/L collumn with the prospect of helping in the long-run.

However, for it to actually be a help, Krause has to keep a team together in the long run. If we see a trade of one of our big name players (Curry, Chandler, JWill, Rose) in the next year or so, it's a failure. It's a signal that Krause himself doesn't think the talent he put together can succeed. What more damning indictment does one need?

We've been losing for four years because every time Krause evaluated what he had, he thought he'd be better off blowing it up. That way, he wouldn't be judged on the fact that the current team he'd put together didn't suceed, but on the future possibility of success. Well, not me, I still think he's got something to answer for for the 4 years of putrid basketball we've endured, but I guess I'm in the minority.




> Taking no risks and getting Blount and Marshall speaks of this same trait of deflecting blame.


This one I don't get, though. How would getting Clark be a bigger risk than getting Marshall? If anything, it seems to me that getting a guy Tyson Chandler clone to fill in for the kids would be a bigger hedge than getting a SF.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> *No, there isn't*. When pressed for it you refer to vague reporters and press clippings.


GB,

I do not have a history of misquoting and massaging the text of reports to try and suit my own needs. You are probably thinking of someone else.

I am not referring to anything that is vague in the least. It has been reported over and over. If you choose to selectively forget, that is fine. I am not trying to convince you. I know better. You will fight it till you are blue in the face, thinking it has some sort of personaly connection with you that my point is the opposite of yours.

Whether you stay current on what is written about the Bulls is again your own choice. Please keep your accusations to yourself though. It is not personal. If you have a problem please PM me.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> What is your point BCH? I understrand that you hate Krause, but what is the point in discussing this? You say E-Rob was a horrible signing, but if Krause didn't sign him, you would say that he didn't take a risk. Krause can't win in your eyes....


KC,

I would have said? You and GB are resorting to what I would have said if something else had happened? Please try and focus on what I am saying rather than speculating on what I would say.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Please keep your accusations to yourself though. It is not personal. If you have a problem please PM me.


What kind of crap is that? What are you trying to turn this into??

I didn't accuse you of anything but not being specific about your accusations. I *know* I'm privy to more Bulls info than you, so when I say put up---I mean it. Give me links and writers names. You haven't yet.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> This one I don't get, though. How would getting Clark be a bigger risk than getting Marshall? If anything, it seems to me that getting a guy Tyson Chandler clone to fill in for the kids would be a bigger hedge than getting a SF.


Clark is younger, and more talented than Marshall. The only reason he was even available to the Bulls was because his stock dropped with his arrest. The Kings took a risk in signing him, but the payoff can be much more than what the Bulls can realize with Marshall and Blount.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> What kind of crap is that? What are you trying to turn this into??
> ...


Please PM me if you have any problems. You are trying to take this to a personal level and I am not willing to particiapate. If you have any specific problems please contact me through a PM.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> KC,
> ...


LOL, it is obvious by what you say that Krause can't win. Either way, you take the negative road. Trading for Chandler has been viewed as a huge risk by most of the media. Yet, you say that it wasn't a risk because he did it for his own personal needs. I think that opinion can only be shared by someone with equal hatred for Krause. Why can't he just be a GM that is trying to make the team better and has made some mistakes along the way? Why does he have to be an ego-maniac that has an alternative motive for every move that he makes?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Please try and focus on what I am saying


_Originally posted by BCH!
Several reporters and columnists have stated that Krause's asking price on Fizer and Crawford have been too high. I can only go on that, take that for what it is worth.
_

Links please.


_Originally posted by BCH!
*There is plenty of proof* that what Jerry does is in his own self interests, mainly pertaining to his ego and wanting all the credit when he doesn't deserve it and deflecting all the blame when it is his to shoulder completely._

Links please.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't think that Krause is trying to deflect blame at all, why would he? Reinsdorf has pretty much assured him that the Bulls are his team until he's lowered into the ground. He doesn'thave to impress anyone or deflect blame for anything. 


Krause is interested in building a winner. The simple fact is that the new CBA has changed a lot of the rules of the game. The route he is going now is through the draft & trades. This makes perfect sense now that teams can keep their rookies for 5 years. Krause has made some GUTSY moves. I'm really amazed at how people can try to make things reflect on him in abad light. You'd think that he would have traded MJ as eager as people think he is to destroy the Bulls! He's the GM, of course he wants the team to win. Fortunately he has the ability to spot talent. Thats why we aren't stuck with Chris Mihm and instead have Jamal Crawford, no matter what anyone tells you, JC will be a better pro than Mihm.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL, it is obvious by what you say that Krause can't win. Either way, you take the negative road. Trading for Chandler has been viewed as a huge risk by most of the media. Yet, you say that it wasn't a risk because he did it for his own personal needs. I think that opinion can only be shared by someone with equal hatred for Krause. Why can't he just be a GM that is trying to make the team better and has made some mistakes along the way? Why does he have to be an ego-maniac that has an alternative motive for every move that he makes?


Because I am not taking a subset of what he has done but rather looking at what he has done and said as a whole. MikeDC states it fairly well. Continually blowing things up, to reset the bar, is my criticism of how he has been rebuilding. My criticism of his ego is based on what he has said as far back as being a scout for the Bullets and his actions as the GM while the Bulls were winning. I never said he was incapable of being the GM of a Championship team, because he has been the GM of a Chamiponship team.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> You are trying to take this to a personal level


Link please. 


Now you're trying to get me in trouble with the board and community mods. I'm just asking you to back up your stated proof you had about krause...bball stuff.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Because I am not taking a subset of what he has done but rather looking at what he has done and said as a whole. MikeDC states it fairly well. Continually blowing things up, to reset the bar, is my criticism of how he has been rebuilding. My criticism of his ego is based on what he has said as far back as being a scout for the Bullets and his actions as the GM while the Bulls were winning. I never said he was incapable of being the GM of a Championship team, because he has been the GM of a Chamiponship team.


What? What statements has he made to lead you to believe that he is in it for himself? I want to hear exact quotes....


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BCH!
> ...


Gettinbranded,

I have addressed this. Please stop. I will not engage in a back and forth with you over minute details. We have been over this before and my criticisms are documented on RealGM.com as well as BullsNews.com. Feel free to peruse those sites for documented information, with source.

KC, 

Please look in the places I mentioned for my opinions on this aspect of Krause. It is there for you to re-read and not something I want to get into as a back and forth here.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Continually blowing things up, to reset the bar, is my criticism of how he has been rebuilding.


Which of the previous teams was more talented and had more potential than this one.

If one existed...you two are right. The teams should not have been blown up. But IF each successive team improved the odds of winning a ring, then the man has done his job. Why settle for being the Nets if you can be the Kings? Why settle for being the Kings if you can be the Lakers?

It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Gettinbranded,
> ...


What are you talking about? He's asking you for links to back up your argument. You are the one who is taking it off-topic.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? He's asking you for links to back up your argument. You are the one who is taking it off-topic.


http:\\realgm.com

Search archives for posts made by The_BCH. 

Enjoy.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> My 50th post. Couldn't resist
> 
> What you call taking risks, others call stupidity


We could debate all day and night and I doubt, based on your comment, that you could ever be convinced that it was smart to trade someone who the Bulls would have ultimately lost to free agency anyway (i.e. Brand) for a promising young prospect. And we could sit here and ponder as to what the Krause could have received in return for Elton in leiu of Chandler. But no one really knows which players were available except for Krause.

Another longstanding controversial topic is about Krause's failure to resign Scottie Quitten Pippen. Again we could argue about whether this was a wise move of not, but fortunuately I am afforded the benefit of history as it has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Pippen cannot lead his team to the finals. He couldn't do it with a star-packed Rocket team and he hasn't been able to do it with a star-packed Blazer team. But yet naive Bulls' fans believe that he could have carrried the a bunch of role players back to title contention. That to me is stupidity.

As for his draft day acquistion of JC. Due to an expected injury in his sophomore campaign, the jury is still out as to whether Krause's pick was brilliant or not.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Gettinbranded,
> ...


It sounds like you're trying to end the discussion. Why?

Please point me to the links. At least tell me the writers, the websites and what they said. I think you're bashing Krause unfairly. Please prove that thats not true.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> http:\\realgm.com
> ...


Why would I want to search your posts? I want to hear the quotes from Krause that have made you believe that he is only in this profession to enhance his ego. If you can't provide them, fine. I'm done....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> http:\\realgm.com
> ...


The_BCH was one of the most prolific posters on RealGM. You expect us to wade through EVERYTHING he ever wrote?

You know what you said that supports these arguments. Plug the data in and give us the url the search engine spits back out at you. Thats a comprimise. I want you to give me the specific thread, but I'll settle for that.

You game?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> Which of the previous teams was more talented and had more potential than this one.
> ...


There's two flaws with this point.

1. Krause deserves some blame for assembling successive teams that deserved to be blown up.

2. Several other teams have managed to build bright futures over a similar period without losing as much (Pacers, Mavs, Lakers, Magic, Clippers).


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think the team would be better with Brand and Mihm instead of Chandler and Crawford?


In the long run, I'd rather have Chandler and Crawford. Elton is a solid player, but not solid enough to carry Mihm. Chandler is a couple of years from being a step or two below KG. And Crawford ... well, you'll see this season why Crawford is all that.


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> HPS,
> ...


How is it that JK's self-serving hidden agenda to deflect blame is so transparent to you, yet JR and his partners can't see it?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> There's two flaws with this point.
> ...


Answer to

1. Brand and Ron Artest would have been a good combo to build on by now. They were some of the best of their draft class too. But it's extremely unlikely that either will ever be the kind of star that could make players around them better and get us into the finals. Keep building when you know that...or try again? 

2. A. LA won through free agency (Shaq). We tried that. Brand would have been an excellent complent to Mcgrady and Jones. 
B. Does bright future mean winning the ring or winning seasons only? Krause wants both...Sans LA, the teams above don't seem to contain the goods to be regular finals competitors.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> Sans LA, the teams above don't seem to contain the goods to be regular finals competitors.


I disagree.

Pacers- O'Neal, Harrington, Bender, Tinsley, Miller, and Artest. That's a lot of young guys.

Mavs- Dirk, Nash, Finley, LaFrentz. They're all still young and improving. Don't see why they couldn't be competing for the championship every year.

Magic- If healthy, they've got Hill and McGrady. Nough said. Don't see why they couldn't make it to the finals.

Clippers- Kandi, Brand, Odom, Miller, Wilcox, Maggette, and Q. Richardson. That's a sick lineup. I don't know if Sterling will keep them paid, but if he does, that could be a dynasty.

Aside from the fact that I want them to be better, I don't see any overwhelming reason to assume that the Bulls have any brighter a future than any of those teams. The Bulls are stacked with potential, but that's no guarantee it pays off, and those teams all have guys that seem further along the learning curve.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Newguy</b>!
> 
> 
> How is it that JK's self-serving hidden agenda to deflect blame is so transparent to you, yet JR and his partners can't see it?


Newguy,

JR and his Partners are part of one of the most profitable organizations in the NBA. Would you not think they are satisfied?

Is it your desire for the Bulls to be profitable or to see the Bulls be winners?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> ...


But none of those teams were rebuilding from from a championship run with no salvagable pieces....as we were. For a 5 year period in which one plan blew up and he had to hurredly come up with another---Krause has done well.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Dallas has built their franchise from the ground up in the time it has taken Krause to reload about 6 times over the past 5 years, and they were working under the same CBA. The same could be said about the Kings.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Newguy,
> ...


Lets not start new business before we dispense with the old:

_I want to hear the quotes from Krause that have made you believe that he is only in this profession to enhance his ego._ and the other mentioned 'proof' too.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> But none of those teams were rebuilding from from a championship run with no salvagable pieces....as we were. For a 5 year period in which one plan blew up and he had to hurredly come up with another---Krause has done well.


Krause has to take some of the blame for having nothing to start with. He did draft Simpkins, Booth, Benjamin, etc. and gave away Caffrey and others for nothing.

Other GMs like West did a much better picking at the bottom of the first round.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Krause has to take some of the blame for having nothing to start with. He did draft Simpkins, Booth, Benjamin, etc. and gave away Caffrey and others for nothing.
> ...



In recent times, there has been a wealth of talent at the bottom. It wasn't always so throughout the Bulls run. Kukoc...but who else?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Dallas has built their franchise from the ground up in the time it has taken Krause to reload about 6 times over the past 5 years, and they were working under the same CBA. The same could be said about the Kings.


I may have the dates wrong...but...

Dallas took a risk on a guy named Dirk---just like we did with Chandler---and the rest of it was just letting Nash (already there) and Finely (already there) mature and develop.

Found those links yet?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> I want to hear the quotes from Krause that have made you believe that he is only in this profession to enhance his ego.


This will go nowhere fast. Krause has plenty of ego. It's difficult to prove that someone made a bad decision due to ego as opposed to a miscalculation (eg. being wrong about a project).

Did Krause miscalculate about Bags growth as a player? Or miscalculate about how easy it would be to get Big Jake's release? Or did he decide to go with the unknown over Big Jake b/c of his ego?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This will go no where fast. Krause has plenty of ego. It's difficult to prove that someone made a bad decision due to ego as opposed to a miscalculation (eg. being wrong about a project).
> ...


Jake was probably too well known. Yes he was a foreign center as well, but teams were passing on him because of his contract. Taking Jake may have raised the bar, where grabbing Bagaric could be viewed more of a project, entailing less expectations.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> Lets not start new business before we dispense with the old:
> ...


Stop on this subject because it is obvious you have no intentions of keeping this subject going, rather only acting on a personal grudge. 

If you want the quotes, do your own research. I know what was posted on RealGM and it does exist. So answer your own questions and go look for them. Why should he hand them to you on a plate only for you to spit more babble and try to argue more?

For someone who can be a decent poster, you sure like to argue a lot... even more than me. Debating is good, when it is done right and not with petty, personal intentions.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I keep hearing about this five year period it has taken Krause to rebuild but my opinion is that a season is more important than a calendar year when discussing length of time the Krause is taking. Three full seasons and One strike-shortened season were all we've had to live with so far. Most dynaties have a rebuilding time about that long. (Except the Lakers) 

I don't really see how Krause can be making moves to deflect blame due to his ego. To me, being the GM of the worst team in the league for 3 1/2 years would be damaging to your ego. It's not like he can claim that he didn't put those teams together and it's also unlikely that he'll say "Holy Crap, did I screw up or what?!" to the press.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> Did Krause miscalculate about Bags growth as a player? Or miscalculate about how easy it would be to get Big Jake's release? Or did he decide to go with the unknown over Big Jake b/c of his ego?


With centers at a premium in the league, why did both drop so far if anyone thought they would ever amount to anything?

Diop, Dare and Ellison were lottery picks for goodness sake.


It's just not a good measure.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Jake was probably too well known. Yes he was a foreign center as well, but teams were passing on him because of his contract. Taking Jake may have raised the bar, where grabbing Bagaric could be viewed more of a project, entailing less expectations.


How many centers has the UConn program every produced? If Voskuhl would have played better while here in Chicago, he would have stayed. 

When I think Voskuhl, I think of Travis Knight... which isn't something you'd want related to.

Outside of that, Bags is simply a more physically-pleasing center. You can teach height, and that is the golden rule. Plus, he was younger, which is the deciding factor in todays NBA.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> How many centers has the UConn program every produced? If Voskuhl would have played better while here in Chicago, he would have stayed.
> ...


Correct me if I am wrong but I believe we are talking about Jake Tsakalidis. If we are talking about Voshkul then forgive me.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Stop on this subject because it is obvious you have no intentions of keeping this subject going, rather only acting on a personal grudge.
> ...



 

You're in bed with him too? Tell me---when in the history of bbs debates has a person ever been allowed to make accusations and then slough off his responsibility to back them up.

Don't bother answering the question. It just says a lot about BCH that he ran for a mod rather that providing proof. It's only a game of oneupmanship to him and he's using his mod powers to plough his way through...

MikeDC: As a point of fact, BCH did no such thing.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

LOL, my bad. I didn't read the "Big" part and I just assumed Voskuhl.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> But none of those teams were rebuilding from from a championship run with no salvagable pieces....as we were. For a 5 year period in which one plan blew up and he had to hurredly come up with another---Krause has done well.


I have to disagree again. It's got to be easier to rebuild from a champion than it is from a loser. Looking at those teams, the Clippers, Mavs, and Magic didn't have squat five years ago. The Pacers had a bunch of old players very similar to the Bulls.

The Mavs had Finley, but Nash was acquired in 98-99, the first of several rebuilding seasons for the Bulls, hence, it's a pretty fair comparison.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, BCH is my wild love child. Why most everything end in a personal vendetta by you? If anyone is a troll, it is definitely you. This is my last post to you and I hope the Bull moderators take notice of you and your "debate" techniques.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I hope the Bull moderators take notice of you and your "debate" techniques.


I hope they do.


I've argued in good faith and havn't done any name calling. I just asked him to back up vague statements. It's weird that MikeDC has followed the whole thread and hasn't said anything to me yet...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't need to take the conversation to this level. We've had a pretty good debate so far, but if you just beat the same point (asking for links) over and over, and then get mad when someone doesn't agree with you, it's gonna go nowhere fast. No one is asking you to provide a link for everything you say... please extend the same courtesy... these are *opinion* boards, after all.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mike, I don't think it is any easier to build from a championship team, particularly a dynasty like the Bullsd had, unless you are left with tradeable commodities. Such as a blow up of a team that can bring something in return. With Pippen forcing a sign & trade, Rodman retiring, MJ retiring, the Bulls were pretty much only left with parts like Longley, Kerr, & Kukoc, who were all dealt for value.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I have to disagree again. It's got to be easier to rebuild from a champion than it is from a loser. Looking at those teams, the Clippers, Mavs, and Magic didn't have squat five years ago. The Pacers had a bunch of old players very similar to the Bulls.


Exactly WHAT did the Bulls have to build with when the dynasty fell apart? They were an expansion team again...they had nothing.

What expansion team has done it that quickly?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The Kings started their rebuilding when they traded Mitch Richmond. 

The Bulls had equal talent at the time when they started with Pippen.

The Kings are far ahead of where the Bulls are right now.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> We've had a pretty good debate so far






> if you just beat the same point (asking for links) over and over, and then get mad when someone doesn't agree with you, it's gonna go nowhere fast. No one is asking you to provide a link for everything you say... please extend the same courtesy... these are *opinion* boards, after all.


I havn't gotten mad yet...I just want to know where:
_Several reporters and columnists have stated that Krause's asking price on Fizer and Crawford have been too high._

Is it wrong to ask for proof of something no one else but he has seen? 

Again:
_There is plenty of proof that what Jerry does is in his own self interests_

Where? These are worthy topics for debate...aren't they?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> I hope they do.
> ...


You spoke too soon. I was letting things go, but you were getting pretty accusatory (to which BCH showed admirable restraint).

Please either get back to basketball, or don't post.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Yeah but Mitch Richmond wasn't up for a new contract! He didn't demand a trade lowering what value his team could get...even in a sign and trade, which, correct me if I am wrong, Richmond was flat out traded, which generally brings much more value. Also, aren't the kings about 20mil over the cap? The Maloofs are willing to fork over money that Bulls management is not. It's pretty easy to build a good team when money is not an issue.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

About the proof: Subject dropped.

I was just stressing the hot air balloon point. 

Back to your regularly scheduled debates.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You spoke too soon. I was letting things go, but you were getting pretty accusatory (to which BCH showed admirable restraint).
> ...


back to ball....my points were made.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Yeah but Mitch Richmond wasn't up for a new contract! He didn't demand a trade lowering what value his team could get...even in a sign and trade, which, correct me if I am wrong, Richmond was flat out traded, which generally brings much more value. Also, aren't the kings about 20mil over the cap? The Maloofs are willing to fork over money that Bulls management is not. It's pretty easy to build a good team when money is not an issue.


That brings me back to my point I made earlier. JR and Co make money hand over fist. If that continues they have no reason to make the monetary commitment to a truly competitive franchise.


----------



## Tri_N (Aug 19, 2002)

About the Big Jake contract, I never thought that was ever an issue since every player dream was to play in the NBA so eventually his agent will think of something. Second of, it doesn't look like Barg make any splash since his time over here anyway. If memory served me corrected, wasn't Toni in a similar case. If anything, we could afford to wait for him to play in Euro for a couple of years and gained good experience like Rebracca when he came here. Also, we had three high second rounders at the time and I sure as hell believe that Bargs will last to those three rounders if given a chance...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I've seen plenty of articles that suggest exactly that.


gottalin...never mind.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

If they don't put a quality product on the floor then they won'tcontinue to make money. Reinsdorf and Krause are both cognizant of this I am sure. Throwing money at a problem is not always the best policy...look at Portland. 

You still didn't address the other points I made.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I am not avoiding your points. I agree with you that it is harder to get talent back in a sign and trade rather than a straight up trade. Dallas is another team that rebuilt trading for Dirk and Nash, though they got to hold onto Finley. 

JR and JK have put together an enticing team. Who can not watch when you have those two young guys on the floor as well as JWill. I have enjoyed almost every Bulls game I watch except the Bulls-Wizards game of futility. Exciting ball and players though does not mean a winning team.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Tri, the conract issue was a big deal at the time. I don't remember all of teh specifics, but they may nothave been able to bring Jake over for like 5 or 6 years if memory serves, teh Bulls are not the only team that passed on him because of this. Toni Kukoc was widely regarded as the "european version of MJ" long before he was drafted by the Bulls, which is incredible considering the Bulls got him in the 2nd round and he waspretty much good to go from day 1 btw.

Bob Whitsitt would have taken Bags (he's a big fan) before he fell to the second.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> JR and Co make money hand over fist.


The organization has LOST value since the breakup and there are no more sell outs.

If you were in Chicago you'd see season tickets pushed in a marketing campaign unseen since the 80's. :no:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Mike, I don't think it is any easier to build from a championship team, particularly a dynasty like the Bullsd had, unless you are left with tradeable commodities. Such as a blow up of a team that can bring something in return. With Pippen forcing a sign & trade, Rodman retiring, MJ retiring, the Bulls were pretty much only left with parts like Longley, Kerr, & Kukoc, who were all dealt for value.


Still, the Bulls got value, so it wasn't like they were completely starting from scratch (the original point). That still puts them ahead of teams like the Clippers.

Also, I don't see the Maloofs as guys that are willing to spend anything. They've paid Bibby and Webber, who both deserved it, but they've spoken at length about their desire to avoid the luxury tax.

Certainly, they're not in the same class as Cuban or Paul Allen.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> That brings me back to my point I made earlier. JR and Co make money hand over fist. If that continues they have no reason to make the monetary commitment to a truly competitive franchise.


When the Bulls were winning titles they had the highest payroll in the league. There is a difference in paying money to look like you're trying (Layden) and paying money when the right pieces fall into place (Maloofs). The Jerry's are somewhere in between. They have offered big bucks to players that are worth it and have been denied. Who do you suggest they drop $112 million on?

You all realize that if McGrady had signed in Chicago there would be no debates. Jerry would be happily building around McGrady putting in complementary pieces needed to contend.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I follow you BCH. Dallas is another team that spends with reckless abandon. At least the Bulls haven't turned into the Knicks. they still have a lot of young talent and hopefully some of it will develop. Time will tell.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> The organization has LOST value since the breakup and there are no more sell outs.
> ...


Yup... all the loosing has had an effect. I think this is why this is Krause's last chance at rebuilding. If this team gets blown up, he's outta here.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Yup... all the loosing has had an effect. I think this is why this is Krause's last chance at rebuilding. If this team gets blown up, he's outta here.


He's nearing time for retirement. He doesn't have 5 more seasons even if he wanted them.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> The organization has LOST value since the breakup and there are no more sell outs.
> ...


The value of the franchise has decreased by they make a net gain of about $20M if I remember the Forbes report correctly.

There is almost no way to maintain the level of value the franchise had without losing money every year. 

Will the Bulls drop the cash if they had a championship team? I think it is likely they would for a short period of time to raise the awareness of the Bulls again, and then they might drop it back down, and reap the rewards like they are doing now with revenue.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I think it is likely they would for a short period of time to raise the awareness of the Bulls again, and then they might drop it back down, and reap the rewards like they are doing now with revenue.


History does not support your hypothesis.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Trading Brand was a copout. If he kept Brand he would not have been able to delay fans expectations about actually producing a winning product. Taking Chandler allowed him to deflect blame on the fact he has a roster of two HS kids.
> 
> Taking no risks and getting Blount and Marshall speaks of this same trait of deflecting blame.
> ...


nice spin on things, your the only one i've heard say that the chandler trade was not a big risk, the brand/chandler trade was the biggest risk a GM has taken for years, tell me the last risk a GM has taken that overshadows this one


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> How long should it take to rebuild?


You asked me this...

The Cubs have been rebuilding since 1909. Is that an answer or what? 

Teams with good organizations, which Krause thinks he has, don't seem to rebuild for long periods of time.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Fizer is a tweener due to lack of height. Marshall is a tweener due to lack of size. They are both tweeners, which is where the comparison comes in.


fizer is bigger then elton brand 




> Calling Fizer a 4 period flies in the face of everything Krause has said about the guy since he drafted him. Hell, Krause played him at 3 for a whole season.


its nice that you only believe what krause says when it fits your argument


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> History does not support your hypothesis.


What part of history does not support it? Has any GM ever been so anxious to dismantle a Championship team faster than Krause? They hadn't done anything besides cruise to another NBA title. The Knicks were envious of how fast Krause jettisoned salary.


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Newguy,
> ...


So let me get this straight. JR and his partners are satisfied with JK's work yet JK feels he must buy time to save his job.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Has any GM ever been so anxious to dismantle a Championship team faster than Krause?


Krause didn't dismantle the dynasty. As stated in many places, it was Phil, and to a lesser extent, MJ that caused the breakup.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Newguy</b>!
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight. JR and his partners are satisfied with JK's work yet JK feels he must buy time to save his job.



Really, really good.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> fizer is bigger then elton brand
> 
> ...


I wasn't making a comparison between Fizer and Brand. Brand to me is an undersized PF as well, but his game more than compensates for it. Fizer's game does not.

Your second comment makes no sense. I believe Krause when I believe him. My believing him generally means that is parrt of my argument. If you mean to say that I pick and choose what to believe of Krause, that is your choice I guess. But if I disagree, generally it is about what he has said and done, and when I agree, it is generally about what he has said and done. This is the same for just about everyone in here that is not blindly just believing in Krause for the sake of him being Krause, the GM of the Bulls.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You asked me this...
> ...


so seeing how long boston had been rebuilding, you'd think they were the worst franchise in the NBA :roll:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> Krause didn't dismantle the dynasty. As stated in many places, it was Phil, and to a lesser extent, MJ that caused the breakup.


Not according to many reporters and columnists as well as the Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam. I will leave it at that. This has been covered as well, and there is no need to bring it back up again.

You act as if this hasn't been covered and you are trying to bring it up yet again. Once again, let me remind you I will not engage in the back and forth you are seeking.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Newguy</b>!
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight. JR and his partners are satisfied with JK's work yet JK feels he must buy time to save his job.


What krause is doing is eliminating expectation while keeping people in the seats. Each goal does not need to be mutually exclusive to be accomplished, and I have never protrayed it as such. He eliminates expectation while enticing with the unknown. They actually compliment themselves very well luckily for Krause.

You may think they would have to be an either/or scenario but that is not the case.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Not according to many reporters and columnists as well as the Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam. I will leave it at that. This has been covered as well, and there is no need to bring it back up again.
> ...


Those are all attention seekers like Mariotti and Bayless. Nobodiies.

Did Halberstam win the pulitzer for the Jordan piece?


Ahhhh. Didn't think so. It's well documented by unbiased sources as to what really occured so, yes, we'll just leave it at that.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> What krause is doing is eliminating expectation while keeping people in the seats.


This theory keeps getting more and more unprecendented. It's not even about basketball anymore...


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> This theory keeps getting more and more unprecendented. It's not even about basketball anymore...


You have never wondered why Krause has restarted the rebuilding numerous times and why he would settle on the safe, no expectation signings of Blount and Marshall rather than going after a player like Clark?

I think it has a lot to do with basketball and the Bulls.

Either I am right, or Krause is a blithering idiot.

He may be egotistical but he is not an idiot. The guy is actually fairly smart, if he could respect boundaries, he would be a gem.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> You have never wondered why Krause has restarted the rebuilding numerous times and why he would settle on the safe, no expectation signings of Blount and Marshall rather than going after a player like Clark?


He restarted once---when his plan to get FA's to put around brand stalled. I think he would have chosen Francis or Odom (nope---pot head) if he wanted a draftee to be the star.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> He restarted once---when his plan to get FA's to put around brand stalled. I think he would have chosen Francis or Odom (nope---pot head) if he wanted a draftee to be the star.


His mentioning taking the best player in the draft and all that cornerstone talk that followed the next couple of years supports that theory.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't think that Krause is trying to deflect blame at all, why would he? Reinsdorf has pretty much assured him that the Bulls are his team until he's lowered into the ground. He doesn'thave to impress anyone or deflect blame for anything.
> 
> 
> Krause is interested in building a winner. The simple fact is that the new CBA has changed a lot of the rules of the game. The route he is going now is through the draft & trades. This makes perfect sense now that teams can keep their rookies for 5 years. Krause has made some GUTSY moves. I'm really amazed at how people can try to make things reflect on him in abad light. You'd think that he would have traded MJ as eager as people think he is to destroy the Bulls! He's the GM, of course he wants the team to win. Fortunately he has the ability to spot talent. Thats why we aren't stuck with Chris Mihm and instead have Jamal Crawford, no matter what anyone tells you, JC will be a better pro than Mihm.


Krause may be interested in building a winner. Actually, I'm sure he is. That doesn't mean he's capable of it, and it doesn't mean players from around the league that could come here and help want anything to do with him. This is the crux of the problem. PJ, Shaq, and Kobe might have something to say about anyone being winners...

Krause's ability to spot talent is highly suspect, to say the least.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

I am sick of this discussion myself, but BCH, you are dead wrong on so many counts it is not even funny. If MJ doesn't quit, the franchise does not get dismantled.

History will show he is bad GM, if not totally incompetent.

Anyone who thinks ability on the court automatically translates into front office success is dreaming.

Ever hear of the Peter principle? You promote someone past the point of their effectiveness due to past success at a different level to a position in which they can no longer be succesful.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> I am sick of this discussion myself, but BCH, you are dead wrong on so many counts it is not even funny. If MJ doesn't quit, the franchise does not get dismantled.
> 
> History will show he is bad GM, if not totally incompetent.
> ...


I am glad you resisted the temptation to take a shot at MJ as well. If you look at the Wizards team and feel MJ has done a horrible job then you are entitled to that opinion. 

I personally like it but I wouldn't expect every to agree to it. I can look at Wes and MJ and see the vast improvement MJ has brought to things, even with the fact that Wes is an incredible evaluator of talent as evidenced by the players he has brought into the organization.

Wes is still there and he still scouts. His machinations in the front office are curbed by Jordan, and MJ runs the show. I do see though where you might criticize, but his track record is fairly clean and he has done well, in making the Wizards competitive, young, and salary cap friendly.

Pardon me for responding butthis was a Sam Smith criticism in his article and Songcycle has a valid reason for bring it up.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> We could debate all day and night and I doubt, based on your comment, that you could ever be convinced that it was smart to trade someone who the Bulls would have ultimately lost to free agency anyway (i.e. Brand) for a promising young prospect. And we could sit here and ponder as to what the Krause could have received in return for Elton in leiu of Chandler. But no one really knows which players were available except for Krause.
> ...


I guess I don't get it. I don't live in some parallel universe where Brand played out his contract and left as a free agent. It really was up to Krause to convince Brand to stay, and Brand hasn't exactly gone to a winner, has he?

I don't think Pippen alone could have led the team back to the finals. I do think that the team WITH Pippen won 6 championships and that it wasn't proven they couldn't continue to win at least one more. Given the benefit of history, we now know the Bulls haven't signed quality free agents because of how Krause related to his players - especially Pippen.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

There is definitely a conflict of interest present with MJ on the floor and his GM/ownership deal. His presence on the floor won the Wiz a lot of games, not the team he put together. It is one thing to dismantle a franchise, it is another thing to build one. When I look at what Dallas got for Howard and what the Wiz got, I have to wonder about an itchy trigger finger willing to take anything and not seeing the total picture.
Before playing with the Wiz, he spent his time in Chicago, not in Washington, not scouting and with no previous experience of any sort off the floor except with women he wasn't married to.
Other GM's work at it every waking momemnt and some guy with no front office experience isn't even in the office during the week.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Yeah but Mitch Richmond wasn't up for a new contract! He didn't demand a trade lowering what value his team could get...even in a sign and trade, which, correct me if I am wrong, Richmond was flat out traded, which generally brings much more value. Also, aren't the kings about 20mil over the cap? The Maloofs are willing to fork over money that Bulls management is not. It's pretty easy to build a good team when money is not an issue.


6 championships in 8 years means BIG money to the team. I remember the old Blazers, with Walton, winning the championship and having big bucks leftover for several years.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Not according to many reporters and columnists as well as the Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam. I will leave it at that. This has been covered as well, and there is no need to bring it back up again.
> ...


Yeah, the whole Playing for Keeps issue has been covered before:

http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=48052&forum=10&start=24

It's a flawed work at best, and certainly not the argument-ender BCH makes it out to be. At least he never felt compelled to respond to my criticisms of it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> His mentioning taking the best player in the draft and all that cornerstone talk that followed the next couple of years supports that theory.


Please tell us what else he was supposed to say.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> he never felt compelled to respond to my criticisms of it.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> That brings me back to my point I made earlier. JR and Co make money hand over fist. If that continues they have no reason to make the monetary commitment to a truly competitive franchise.


Yes and No 

I think they do make a bundle

But I do not think Reinsdorf is shy about shelling out the bucks when he has quality - SO LONG AS ...the relativity is maintained in what he to pay for quality and consequent profitability 

This would mean _real_ quality being equated to a genuine contender that can stay together for a while and prolong the window of opportunity comparative to other franchises.... in other words the shot at a true dynasty. If this criteria can be met , then logic follows that revenues fly and costs can go in accordance with this - thus maintaining relativity of profitability 

Who wants to pay champagne prices for a case of Coors light? 

In this regard as you look around the league the last couple of years and who was available in the context of who really could have made an immediate and true long term difference

Jason Kidd ? Chris Webber ? 

Sorry but they are the only two I can think of and here is the reality - We did not have anything of value to swing a trade for Kidd and CWebb was never coming here - although a gutsy move may have been to trade Brand and Artest for Spree , followed up by a 2001 draft day trade of our #4 pick ( Eddy Curry ) and Ron Mercer for Jalen Rose . With Spree and Rose on board - the big risk would have been to pitch CWebb hard and with both his dawqs on board and the chance to sign him outright - we may have had a chance. Brad Miller would have been retained as would have Jamal Crawford giving us a starting five of 

Miller
CWebb
Rose
Spree
Crawford 

6th man - Fizer

Back ups already on roster would have been :

Bagaric
Voshkul ( if resigned as he was a FA ) 
Hassell ( he would have seen big minutes ) 
Benjamin ( if he was persisted with and developed ) 
AJ Guyton

And we could have still got Greg Anthony for next to nothing 

If Spree and Rose were traded for that got us the difference maker in CWebb supported by Miller and Crawford in the starting 5 with key reserves being Fizer, Anthony and Hassell - I contend that this team would have been one vet big body away upfront from having a legitimate shot at an Eastern Conference title ( and therefore contending for a championship over a 3 - 4 window - Philly had a shorter period of time than this ) 

With regard to Kidd - would he have stayed when he is already eyeing TD off in good ole San Antone? Plus Kidd was unattainable and the Colangelos would never have put him on the Bulls which was considered moreso the armpit of the NBA than Jersey. ( How sad ) 

So the alternatives were to blow up a young core to trade for a cut above average talents like Allan Houston and Shareef types that are nice players but are less likley to lead you to the promised land like CWebb or Kidd.

Other players like TMac , Vince and Paul Pierce were clearly unattainable as well 

So I contend that there were no risks to take for this type of quality we needed because this type of quality are not risks in the first place and they were clearly out of our grasp because of the changing CBA landscape and our stigma

I think Management have been discliplined in not trading for just any ole "name" talent that will placate . Rose was a purposeful and decisive target which has the capacity to accelerate our younger guys in their development and in retrospect was a trade that needed to be made.

I think what is clear though is that Management will not take risks that are not purposeful and educated and they will not shell out money for a medicore product and for that I can't really blame them - and this is where you have to seperate fiscal prudence from the emotive elements of sports ownership which can maybe put a hyped and semi exciting product on the floor but is structurally flawed and never really has any chance of being in the window of opportunity to take it all - and to do this it has to be all about balance and structure 

If you really want Jerry to take a risk and we want to win now without overtly compromising our capacity to be a true contender in 2 - 3 years ?

The gamble is to trade Marcus Fizer and Jamal Crawford ( you correctly identify Jerry's failure at this stage to convert/rationalise here ) for Marcus Camby.

I mean if Keon should have been given a run why not Marcus Camby ?

Keon is 18 months younger but has only averaged 66 games over 4 full seasons whereas Camby has averaged fewer at 56 - however Keon has averaged 8 less minutes a game and with the same work load as Camby may have missed a few more.

They are in fact for mine very similar players but with Camby the more experienced

Anyway , at this stage when healthy, Camby is the superior player but will cost an extra $2.25M than Keon . When healthy he is probably worth that much more 

It certainly addresses our defensive shortcomings / concerns over the young guys.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

I've said this before and I'll say it again- Jerry Krause is one of the best drafting GMs anywhere. I think Sam Smith usually has some smart things to say (see his quote in my signature), but I think his evaluation of this summer may be way off. Krause wanted FA's who can help lead the young guys without taking away too much playing time or commanding longterm deals and he did it, so what's the problem? Is Keon Clark really so special? Personally, I'd rather have an older guy like Marshall who can provide leadership now but who will be gone in three years, when these guys are commanding more $ and PT. The breakup of the dynasty is in the past, and there was fault on both sides.

By the way, I've said this before and I'll say it again- Jerry Krause is one of the best drafting GMs anywhere. He's assembled a monstrously talented team in a relatively short amount of time (notice i said relatively- look how long the Clippers were bad before getting a talented team). Forget about the mistake he made on M.Finley- 20 other Gms passed on him too. The good in his drafts, I feel, has far outweighed the bad. Krause's greatest attribute is his patience and ability to see the big picture in spite of what people may say about him (see Brand for Chandler). I'm saying now that all the Krause bashers will have to eat their words one day. He may be an egomaniac, but we are very lucky to have him. I'd like to see someone name six GM's who are as good as him. I can see Geoff Petrie, Jerry West, Don Nelson, and possibly Elgin Baylor and Donnie Walsh as being on his level, but who other than that? Guys like Joe Dumars and Chris Wallace have a great feel for plugging in holes on a team, but do not seem to build for the long run. Rod Thorn, imo, got lucky with the Jordan pick (he would hav picked Hakeem if given half a chance) and other than that built his rep on one great trade (Kidd)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> Yeah, the whole Playing for Keeps issue has been covered before:
> 
> ...


BCH was disputing this:



> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> Krause didn't dismantle the dynasty. As stated in many places, it was Phil, and to a lesser extent, MJ that caused the breakup.


The author of Playing for Keeps did not primarily blame Phil with which I agree. Seems like you need to give Reinsdorf, Krause, Jordan and Phil all some credit for the breakup. If I had to lay blame on one event, I would argue that by not signing Pippen that Reinsdorf and Krause did dismantle the dynasty.

p.s. Jordan Rules is the best book but it covers the first championship team, right? I took a look at the old RealGM thread and you did not mention any of the breakup details as proof of it's flaws. Nevertheless, however flawed you feel Playing for Keeps is, it's the best indepth book on the breakup of the Bulls that I have read. Do you have preferred reading?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I have to disagree again. It's got to be easier to rebuild from a champion than it is from a loser. Looking at those teams, the Clippers, Mavs, and Magic didn't have squat five years ago. The Pacers had a bunch of old players very similar to the Bulls.
> ...


Point well taken, but the Bulls' cupboard was _literally_ bare when Pippen was traded and all those expiring contracts went elsewhere. 

As for the rest of the teams that've been mentioned on this thread:

--I've given Donnie Walsh credit here and elsewhere as being the best GM in the league, pound for pound. He's retooled an NBA Finals squad on the run and has them poised for a solid ten-year run in the East. All this while having to keep an eye on costs and fighting the obstacles presented in a small market where college hoops will always be king.

--Chris Webber wasn't so much traded to Sacramento as he was banished. The Kings were incredibly lucky to get Webber, and luckier still when he realized he'd have to straighten up and fly right to get paid. I don't consider this great GM work, although Petrie's ability to mine Europe can't be denied. 

--The Nets fall into the same category as the Kings--beneficiaries of circumstance. If Jason Kidd doesn't hit his wife, there's no renaissance in New Jersey. It's just that simple. 

--When you talk about the Mavs and Clips, I think it's just wrong to say that they were in the same place as the Bulls in 1998-1999. The Mavs were coming off the worst decade in NBA history and although I can't produce an exact timeline, they did have assets like Kidd, Jackson, and Mashburn that they directly or indirectly managed to spin into Finley, Nash, and Bradley. I also would say there's a big difference between building a good team and a championship contender. Dallas is a very good team and a lot of fun to watch, but they're a long, long way away from a title. The Clips are the worst team in the history of pro sports, plain and simple; the law of averages dictates that something positive had to happen to them eventually. Like Dallas, I think they're amassing a team that will be good for a long time but never good enough.

--I can't give John Gabriel credit for the fact that some people have terrible taste. For me, the lack of a state income tax doesn't begin to make up for the 2000% humidity in the summer or the Olive Garden being the best Italian restaurant in town, but today's NBA players don't share the same sentiment. I'm not sure why Gabriel gets a free pass--his reneging on his verbal deal with Amaechi was far, far worse than even the worst rumor you've heard about Krause--but ultimately he's put together a one-horse team that'll be virtually impossible to improve.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Personally, I feel that anyone who looks at the situation and focuses the blame on one "side" or another (such as when people say that it was primarily Phil, or MJ, or that it is all Krause's fault) are showing one pre-existing bias or the other.

To my mind, they collectively blew a good thing that could have won a couple more championships. In it's place, we got 4 seasons of ****. I think people who think that losing is acceptable over the past couple of years haven't watched or listened to as many games as I have.

I like Phil Jackson's coaching, and MJ's play. I like some of what Krause has done as a GM and some of what MJ has done as a GM. But seperately, none is as good as what they had when they were together.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess I don't get it. I don't live in some parallel universe where Brand played out his contract and left as a free agent. It really was up to Krause to convince Brand to stay, and Brand hasn't exactly gone to a winner, has he?
> ...


I don't know about you, but I don't need to live in a parallel universe to able to read the writing on the wall. Brand expressed on a numerous occassions that he was displeased with how things were going for him in Chicago. Despite putting up All-Star caliber numbers, Elton was frustrated over the lack of wins. And who could blame him. Furthermore, although I have no proof, I would venture to guess that Krause could sense or was told outright, that Brand would be happier wearing another jersey. Appearently Krause didn't think that Elton was worth what other teams were willing to pay him (i.e. most likely the max). You're right Brand hasn't gone to a winner which further supports the notion that letting Brand go wasn't as bad as it may appear. I don't think anyone would argue that the Clippers were more talented (top to bottom) than the Bulls last season. Yet even with the addition of All-Star Elton Brand the Clippers didn't make the playoffs. And I'm not suggesting that even if they had made the playoffs only to be eliminated the first round year in and year out, would it have been acceptable. Maybe for a Clippers fan, but not for a Bulls fan. Once you've tasted victory, anything less just tastes sour.

You "don't think" Pippen would have led the team to another championship? Believe me, it's a certainty. There's no thought required. It's time to let go of the past, embrace the present, and look forward to the future. It's senseless for me to try and convince you why it was wise for Krause to dimantle the Bulls as he did. Furthermore, I'm not surprised that you believe that Krause let the greatest sports figure in the history of all sports just walk away without a fight or a plea. It single biggest attraction and money-maker in sports? Michael Jordan retired from basketball, because Michael Jordan wanted to. He wasn't under any contract or anything. If he wanted to continue his career, he could have played for any team he wanted. But he alone decided to call it quits. When asked if he thought he would live to regret not going for a 7 title, he replied, "Maybe he would reconsider if the team was kept in tact". To refresh your memory, Jordan said that he would consider staying for another year (on a year-to-year basis) if Jackson, Pippen, Rodman, and Harper were brought back. However, Pippen and Jackson wanted top-dollar multiyear deals and wanted to play/coach for other teams. Which seemed to be sort of ungrateful considering that without Krause, Jackson would be coaching in the CBA in Souix City, IA making 80K a year and Pippen would be greating Walmart customers in Little Rock, AR. Remember that Pippen wasn't on any other team's scouting report when Krause drafted him. So Krause did the only thing he could, he allowed Jordan to go out on top and let Jackson and Pippen (and the others) pursue their big contracts. We could sit here all day and night and surmise what would have happen if Krause would have opened up the vaults and had given Jordan $30M a year, signed Pippen to a $65M deal, and Jackson a 5-yr $30M deal. The Bulls may have won a 7th title, maybe they wouldn't have. I guess we'll never know.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> Remember that Pippen wasn't on any other team's scouting report when Krause drafted him.


Seems like I could argue most points that you made, but the one just above is my favorite. If no other teams knew about Pippen, why the hell did Krause trade up from the 8th selection in the draft to the 5th pick to get Pippen?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Point well taken, but the Bulls' cupboard was _literally_ bare when Pippen was traded and all those expiring contracts went elsewhere.
> ...


Excellent post Scott

I agree on your particular points with regard to Donnie Walsh and John Gabriel 

Walsh has done an incredible job and gets my vote as the most "in form" GM in the league over the last 5 years. John Gabriel will reap what he has sown

Gabriel is a turd - pure and simple and the only reason he may have a chance at attracting an inside presence next year is because of TMac . I still can't believe he traded away Brendan Hayward


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Scott,

That's a good post, and you could be right about a lot of it, but I also think some of it's your heart, rather than skeptical objectivity talking.

Consider:

* The 97/98 Mavs featured Michael Finley and that's about it. The rest of their guys were awful - Bradley, Cedric Ceballos, Hubert Davis, Samaki Walker, Khalid Reeves, Erick Strickland, AC Green, Shawn Respert, Chris Antsey... come to think of it, they sound a lot like the Bulls of a couple years later.

Yeah, at some point, they had Kidd, Mash, and Jim Jackson, but most of it they squandered away by the dawn of the time period we're talking about. They got Nash for two mid-first rounders and a couple of scrubs, IIRC (_He spent 2 seasons with the Suns, before being traded to the Mavs in a draft day deal in 1998 for 1998 first rounder Pat Garrity, Martin Muursepp, Bubba Wells and the Mavs 1999 unconditional first round pick_ http://www.unc.edu/~lbrooks2/draft.html )

Point being, they started from the ground up, with little to work with except Finley. In comparison, we had a three guys we traded for first round picks, and another one we could potentially have gotten more for (Pippen). LOL, and Brent Barry.

As far as the talent level on the Mavs, I don't see how they're necessarily a long way from being contenders. Dirk and Nash are a couple simply awesome players, and Finley is pretty solid too. 

* The Clippers, had absolutely nothing on their 97-98 team. Yuck. Yet, after the 98-99 season, they (having only added Kandi), were actually in worse draft position than the Bulls. As far as their talent level, I just don't see how you can say they won't be contenders. If they stick together (which is the real question), they seem to have as much talent as anyone.

* And that gets to the real point. Are you sure you're not just looking with rose-colored glasses when you think the Bulls are near certain to be contenders and those other teams are doomed to be also-rans?

Think about what that means for a minute. To do that, Curry, Chandler, and JWill have to become truly all-star players... like Nowitski, Nash, Brand, or Miller. Sure, it's possible that this happens, but it's also possible that Chandler only becomes Marcus Camby and JWill is more like Stephon Marbury than Jason Kidd.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Wow...the last 10 posts or so have been dynamite...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> it's also possible JWill is more like Stephon Marbury than Jason Kidd.


Stephon has great skills...but the word team is spelled with one letter to him: I

Jwill will never be that kind of baller.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

god i hope not


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> The author of Playing for Keeps did not primarily blame Phil with which I agree. Seems like you need to give Reinsdorf, Krause, Jordan and Phil all some credit for the breakup. If I had to lay blame on one event, I would argue that by not signing Pippen that Reinsdorf and Krause did dismantle the dynasty.
> 
> p.s. Jordan Rules is the best book but it covers the first championship team, right? I took a look at the old RealGM thread and you did not mention any of the breakup details as proof of it's flaws. Nevertheless, however flawed you feel Playing for Keeps is, it's the best indepth book on the breakup of the Bulls that I have read. Do you have preferred reading?


I've never read an account of the Bulls' breakup that completely satisfies me; it seems they all have some kind of agenda. I'm also one of the few people who think it was a correct decision--that team was ready to have a fork stuck in it as it was, and the shortened season plus Jordan's severed finger made it a no-brainer. I'm just thankful we didn't have to see those guys lose a first or second round series.

I don't think the failure to re-sign Pippen was the first domino; in fact, I'm not sure there's ONE incident that started the chain of events. There were so many forces at work--the Alaska-sized egos of Jordan, Jackson, and Krause; Pippen's simmering resentment; the financial concerns of Reinsdorf and his partners, etc. It would have been nice to have a more amicable ending, but stuff happens.

I don't think Playing for Keeps isn't a worthy read, but it's not at all the indisputable gospel BCH makes it out to be. Frankly, I doubt the book's intentions in spots--Bill Bradley and David Halberstam are good friends, Bradley introduced Phil to Halberstam, and Phil encouraged Halberstam to write the book--much to Krause's chagrin. I don't doubt Halberstam attempted to get Krause's side of the story in person, and I'm equally sure Krause rebuffed him. What Halberstam was left with, then, was commentary from Krause's bitterest enemies and silence from Krause's allies.

Halberstam did win a Pulitzer Prize, that much is for certain. It was for his coverage of the beginnings of the conflict in Vietnam for the NY Times. I don't think that infallibility is one of the benefits of winning the Pulitzer, but I might be wrong.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never read an account of the Bulls' breakup that completely satisfies me; it seems they all have some kind of agenda. I'm also one of the few people who think it was a correct decision--that team was ready to have a fork stuck in it as it was, and the shortened season plus Jordan's severed finger made it a no-brainer. I'm just thankful we didn't have to see those guys lose a first or second round series.
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but I don't need to live in a parallel universe to able to read the writing on the wall. Brand expressed on a numerous occassions that he was displeased with how things were going for him in Chicago. Despite putting up All-Star caliber numbers, Elton was frustrated over the lack of wins. And who could blame him. Furthermore, although I have no proof, I would venture to guess that Krause could sense or was told outright, that Brand would be happier wearing another jersey. Appearently Krause didn't think that Elton was worth what other teams were willing to pay him (i.e. most likely the max). You're right Brand hasn't gone to a winner which further supports the notion that letting Brand go wasn't as bad as it may appear. I don't think anyone would argue that the Clippers were more talented (top to bottom) than the Bulls last season. Yet even with the addition of All-Star Elton Brand the Clippers didn't make the playoffs. And I'm not suggesting that even if they had made the playoffs only to be eliminated the first round year in and year out, would it have been acceptable. Maybe for a Clippers fan, but not for a Bulls fan. Once you've tasted victory, anything less just tastes sour.
> ...


What Krause did was well calculated. Jordan and Jackson were still considering coming back when Krause hired Floyd to some nebulous assistant coaching position - an out and out insult to Jackson. Jordan had announced he would only come back and play if Jackson was the coach.

I'm still a fan, and have been for 35+ years. But being a fan doesn't blind me to how bad the team has been and how bad it is going to be until Krause is gone - and then some.



http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/ap/bkb/1998/nba/chi/feat/archive/091798/chi68690.html

CHICAGO (Sep 18, 1998 - 1:19 EDT) -- Tim Floyd met with former Chicago Bulls coach Phil Jackson last week, and an account of the meeting had Floyd making overtures about Jackson returning next season, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Thursday.

Jackson appreciated the visit but isn't about to give up on the peace of mind he has found since leaving the team in June, one source told the newspaper.

...

Floyd, hired in July as the team's director of basketball operations and coach-in-waiting, was unavailable for comment.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> * And that gets to the real point. Are you sure you're not just looking with rose-colored glasses when you think the Bulls are near certain to be contenders and those other teams are doomed to be also-rans?
> 
> Think about what that means for a minute. To do that, Curry, Chandler, and JWill have to become truly all-star players... like Nowitski, Nash, Brand, or Miller. Sure, it's possible that this happens, but it's also possible that Chandler only becomes Marcus Camby and JWill is more like Stephon Marbury than Jason Kidd.


To answer your question, no: I don't think this group of Bulls will definitely turn into a championship squad. But I do admire Krause's singleminded pursuit of a title, and how he's been able to improvise in what's become a vastly different league since he embarked on the rebuilding program. 

Quick takes on some of your other points:

--Until they learn to play something that passingly resembles defense, Nash and Nowitzki will be overrated, even if they are supreme one-way players.

--If there's one thing I've learned while watching the NBA, it's that you're only as good as your best player. In other words, it's better to have one superstar than 12 stars. I just don't think Brand or Miller is that good. Odom is, but there are a million unanswered questions there. Listen, you can't help but be impressed with what that franchise has done, but you've also got to consider where they're coming from.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never read an account of the Bulls' breakup that completely satisfies me; it seems they all have some kind of agenda. I'm also one of the few people who think it was a correct decision--that team was ready to have a fork stuck in it as it was, and the shortened season plus Jordan's severed finger made it a no-brainer. I'm just thankful we didn't have to see those guys lose a first or second round series.
> ...


Halberstam's Pulitzer was for Journalism. Regardless of the subject for which he garnered it, it reflects his integrity and his journalistic ability. If you want to believe that Krause's "allies" did not participate in any sort of interview with Halberstam then you are entitled to that _opinion_. 

Halberstam was left with gathering all the information that had been published to that date as well as hours and hours of personal interviews. His account is not sparkling of any particular individual, least of all Phil Jackson, his so called reason for writing the book.

The book is not accusatory. It is instead a look into the whole situation that lets the reader judge for themselves. It draws no conclusions outside of those of the people interviewed. The principal people affected are PJ, MJ, and Pippen versus Krause and Reinsdorf. PJ, MJ, and Pippen react to what is done by Krause and Reinsdorf. Take it for what you will but that is what it is.

You keep trying to say that I have portrayed the book as gospel. I have not. What I have done is recognize the man who wrote it and made my own judgements based on what I read. I contexualized what was written and formed my own opinion. I would hope more people would read it, because it is an excellent book.

Regardless of the book, you can observe the following. PJ is still a coach with a GM, and he has won 3 more rings. MJ played another season, and possibly 2, as well as joining another organization. Could they have won another ring in Chicago? No one will ever know.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Seems like I could argue most points that you made, but the one just above is my favorite. If no other teams knew about Pippen, why the hell did Krause trade up from the 8th selection in the draft to the 5th pick to get Pippen?


I stand corrected. What I should have said was the Pippen was a little-known player in college until Krause discovered him. From his Bio on NBA.COM .. "In the months prior to the 1987 NBA Draft, Chicago Bulls General Manager Jerry Krause became impressed with the multidimensional talents of Scottie Pippen, a little-known player at the University of Central Arkansas." Nonetheless, I have lost all credibility (as if I ever had any in the first place).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> I don't doubt Halberstam attempted to get Krause's side of the story in person, and I'm equally sure Krause rebuffed him. What Halberstam was left with, then, was commentary from Krause's bitterest enemies and silence from Krause's allies.


Isn't that Krause's somewhat damning itself? Given the opportunity to present his side.... no one has. One might say that it's "just his nature" to be a secretive person, but at the same time, if his unwillingness to communicate the facts of a situation allow him and the team to be compromised and given a bad reputation (assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that he's blameless in the whole mess), then that's a fault in itself.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Some thoughts:

1. Jerry Krause will never get the credit he deserves for surrounding the best NBA player ever (Michael Jordan) with players and a great coach that enabled a franchise to win 6 championships in 8 seasons. Period. Its not going to happen anytime soon and not in our lifetime.

2. Jerry Krause is the most hated GM in recent history of Chicago sports (though Bill Wirtz may run a close second). Much of this is undeserved, as Jerry is not a likable personality and tends to rub even the most optimistic beatwriter the wrong way. Couple this with a grating relationship w/ superstars MJ, Pippen, coach Jackson, etc. and we've got a 'whipping boy' for the demise of the Bulls. Obviously, a GM should be judged by W's and L's, and personnel moves made.

3. Jerry Krause has shown hubris at a few different times this past decade, already adding to the negative perception of him in the NBA and media. Case in point, the 'organizations win championships' line and the idea that players would simply take the Bulls money in Free Agency because it was still a great 'franchise' in his eyes. Sans CBA, the latter may have worked to attract big name FAs, but it didn't and failed miserably.

To sum this up, basically Jerry Krause will get full credit or blame for how he rebuilt the post-dynasty Bulls. There is no longer an ubber superstar (MJ) or great coach (Phil) to take away the credit or blame. Its his show now, and he knows it. <b> So Krause should be judged not so much for why the dynasty was broken up, but rather how he has rebuilt the post-dynasty Bulls. </b>

But this being said, I am not near as optimistic as other fans in this board. The Bulls, sans Cleveland, have been the worst team in the NBA for 4 seasons. Period. Its a long *ss road to the top, and just because we are 'young' and have 'lots of potential', doestn' entitle us to a championship team in a few years time. I love how so many here boast that the Bulls are '3 years from the Finals'.  How many other teams are saying the same thing? All of them?!! If we had some proven young talent already on board (ala Indiana) then we might be able to say such a thing, but we do not.

Remember with me that a championship team usually has these components:
1. 2 superstars or one uber star and another All-Star
2. Great team defense
3. Solid bench rotation and role players
4. Veteran PG

We have none of these. So before we toast any champaigne w/ Jerry Krause on our minds, lets remember that this team is still far from championship level. The road is long and there is still a huge cloud of uncertainty covering the Bulls future.

Peace all.

VD


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> You keep trying to say that I have portrayed the book as gospel. I have not. What I have done is recognize the man who wrote it and made my own judgements based on what I read. I contexualized what was written and formed my own opinion. I would hope more people would read it, because it is an excellent book.


We can go in circles on this, I guess. You've used the book as a crutch on two boards over the span of five months now. It's a decent book, particularly if you stick to the passages where Halberstam was actually with the team, tape recorder in hand. The rest of it is ordinary where it isn't flimsy. Overall, it pales in comparison to BREAKS OF THE GAME and SUMMER OF 49.[/QUOTE] 



> Regardless of the book, you can observe the following. PJ is still a coach with a GM, and he has won 3 more rings. MJ played another season, and possibly 2, as well as joining another organization. Could they have won another ring in Chicago? No one will ever know.


I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever question Phil's ability to coach a championship caliber team. You've lost me with the Jordan argument, though. 1998s Jordan was already considerably diminished, it's doubtful Jordan would have been able to play in the lockout season due to his severed finger, and what I've seen of Wizards Jordan only bolsters my feeling that the decision to break up the Bulls was the correct one, regardless of who made it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't that Krause's somewhat damning itself? Given the opportunity to present his side.... no one has. One might say that it's "just his nature" to be a secretive person, but at the same time, if his unwillingness to communicate the facts of a situation allow him and the team to be compromised and given a bad reputation (assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that he's blameless in the whole mess), then that's a fault in itself.


The end of Playing for Keeps has a passage where Halberstam, paraphrasing one of the local reporters, says Krause probably deserves more credit than he gets but not as much as he (Krause) thinks he should. I think on one hand Krause genuinely doesn't care about the public's perception of him but on the other feels he gets a rotten deal in the press. He would have been perfectly well within his rights not to talk to Halberstam, as he'd been somewhat burned by the Jordan Rules and book authors are outside of a GMs required scope of dealing with the press.

I'm sure a good psychiatrist would have a field day with Krause...but his personal foibles are mostly harmless fodder for the media.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

ScottMay,

1998's MJ was far from considerably diminished. He played without injury and did what he had to do to win that last ring. Your criticism of MJ this past season is ludicrous when you measure how he played while injured. He was putting up numbers in the first half of the season that had people talking MVP. I am sorry you found him to be pitiful but he was far from that. If you have watched Jordan play you would see that his index finger is pretty much useless as it is right now. He could have played during the lockout season.

You are correct that Halberstam's other books were of high quality as well.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Given the benefit of history, we now know the Bulls haven't signed quality free agents because of how Krause related to his players - especially Pippen.


I think this is the excuse offered by the players - not necessarily the real reason

Krause and Pip or Krause and Horace never needed to be best mates and any GM and their player relationships do not , and should not , be based on this 

Its just that the practical reality is is that there is no romance without finance and this factor is what defines "being able to relate" in the Jordan era

Also key innate themes in this period of pop star and pop star promoter.management egos is :

_There is no power without glory_ 

and 

the old Orwellian classic : _Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely_

While we are talking about the venerable David Halberstam , he asserts that Scottie came from Arkansas poverty and in effect this peasant mindset never left him . He also asserts that Horace came from a similar poverty stricken background and was quite ignorant to boot.

Put uneducated black poor Scottie and Horace in their individual negotiations against the jewish savvy and business sophistication of the Jerry's ( if not social sophistication of JK ) and their masterful grasp of finance and negotiation - and , throw a bit of good ole fashioned jealously in there for good measure from both Horace and Scottie - and hell let's throw Pip's ugly mean streak in there too ......... its very easy to see how the Jerry's sophisticated yet abrupt business negotiation style rankled the popstar egos and unprepared , ill equipped mindsets of Scottie and Horace and that this led to damage that could not be fixed.

Shortcomings and shortsightedness and poor management from both camps ? 

No doubt.

The issue of "credit" for the championships was the fuel but not necessarily the fire itself which MJ used to politicise and torch Jerry with . 

MJ was smarter than Horace and Scottie . He was a killer on the court and a killer off it - and he had killer take no prisoner advisers ( Superagent Falk at the height of his powers in pre CBA ) Who's to say what started off as resentment against Krause and how he handled Jordan's injury in 86? didnt unconsciously fester as an ultimate aim to take him down and replace him which only came to the conscious mind in his last few years ( on the 2nd comeback ? ) I think he is naturally manipulative and is predator like in this regard in going after what he is decided he will take. And, I think he certainly used Scottie's shortcomings in not being able to deal with the business side ( to the business ) in being able to polarise the "us and them" situation which ultimately pursued , and which , in a court of public opinion , the Jerrys were always going to get lynched.

Then of course the public buy into it , the organisation is hamstrung in being able to build on the fly because MJ won't let them ( threatening to retire if Pip is dealt etc etc ) and people buy into this basketball camelot - never wanting to see it end.

MJ and Co get their last ring and MJ makes his play for Krause and owns the right to write history on the fly ( a right bestowed upon him by an adoring public ) and as such tweaks the breakup of dynasty thing to his advantage after he had already made the decision * at that time * that he didnt want to play anymore 

Ignorant buffoons like KG jump in on the MJ bandwagon , Darius Miles's momma says that here lil D'res wanna lout wear fros or rows that masser Jeree like it high n tight.. and other such rot that build a public perception from players around the league

Tim Duncan was not coming here or to Orlando for that matter, he had just won a ring in San Antone and was first mate to the Admiral - money was not an issue so he was not going anywhere.

Once Orlando missed Duncan , it was a better situation for TMac to take the money and have Grant Hill for a cushion rather than bear the pressure directly as he would have to do in Chi - so he went home to momma

TT was not ready to take a main man role and bring that pressure down on himself - hell he has not even had to do it in Milwaukee. Nice player - but do you reckon the Bucks would have signed him 2 years ago if they understood the ramifications of the CBA and that TT will cost them around $15M this year over and above what they pay him at $11M per. Anyway he camoflauged his cowardice by attaching himself to George the surrogate Dad who promised him that Big ( Bad ) Dog would be put down. Well it took them 2 years to screw the pooch after this promise to lil Timmy.. which gets me thinking I wouldnt want to be one of George Karl's kids on a long cross country car trip :

"Are we there yet Dad? I want a drink !" ( Sniffle Sniffle Boo Hoo )

"Soon kids"

Probably would have died of dehydration by now.

So Jerry's batting none from 3 and all of sudden the stench starts getting worse and more Scottie propaganda and pupeetering ensues by MJ and David Falk . 

Eddie Jones would have been an OK pick up and represented some small amount of face saving but after his momma dissed us and said her lil Eddie wanted to come home and prayed to the good lord that he not be delivered to the Bulls , this was another body blow

The Glen Rice debacle with Jerry standing the airport with flowers and chocolates in hand with the Polka band cranking it out with Benny doing the gypsy two step was the final straw.

MJ gave it a shot and lost . He helped perpetuate the controvesy to further his aims and certainly had plenty of ammo but at the end of the day , Jerry Krause's grasp of the business and his patience as a GM as well as being a more dedicated and proficient scouter and judge of talent were always going to put him as a GM MVP over Jordan.

Try as he may and as he has Jordan and his manipulative media machinations are never going to best Jerry Krause 

So there are my reasons - it was always about money, ego , jealously and ambition. [edited by Showtyme]

Would have made for a great soap


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

I was really enjoying reading FJ's latest until I saw the edited by. I really think while you guys mean well, you are going overboard.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> I was really enjoying reading FJ's latest until I saw the edited by. I really think while you guys mean well, you are going overboard.


The guidelines are fairly well defined and Showtyme was enforcing the policy as it is stated. You are free to bring the issue up with an Admin if you feel it is unfair.

While the edit of FJ does remove a whimsical joke of his, it does not take away from his points or the effort he placed into his post.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*Offensive and ....*

A bit over zealous I must say 

The word breasts ( oops there it goes again ) can be found acceptable to a censor classifying acceptable viewing for an audience greater than the age of 12 .

I guess I should have written " and a couple of well endowed women" but it just would not have had the same zip now would it

What about busty lusties

Can we say that ?


O BEHOLD HIS MIGHTY HANDS!



I find that expression of the female anatomy to be demeaning and if "Zip" is what you are looking for, I personally, suggest you go to one of many porn sites available. thanks.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

I didn't see the original, but I am starting to feel that the censorship here is a bit much. I will read the rules, but this place may be a bit too PC for me.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

*I do not like the use of these type words on this site..*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> A bit over zealous I must say
> 
> The word breast can be found acceptable to a censor classifying acceptable viewing for an audience greater than the age of 12 .
> ...


Its time we gave Bullsnews another shot.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ possibly it was not the words but the context it was used in?

The fact that you chose the turn of phrase to elicit a certain response should be where you start in understanding why it was edited.

You may not agree with the Guidelines but they are posted for a reason. Getting upset over being edited for violating the Guidelines is immature. Whether I agree with what you wrote is immaterial. Just acknowledge it and move on.

On a side note the use of that term is on the banned list of words by the FCC. Go figure.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ possibly it was not the words but the context it was used in?
> 
> The fact that you chose the turn of phrase to elicit a certain response should be where you start in understanding why it was edited.
> ...


Sportstalk, RealGM, BasketballBoards, ....?


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

*excuse the interruption*

but is there a point to this?

While you and I may be in agreement that the word isn't that bad, it also may be offensive and innapropriate to some. Yes, we do have younger members here, so we try to watch out for them too. Thanks for understanding. 

Now back to the topic...

Peace.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

*Re: excuse the interruption*



> Originally posted by <b>naesdj</b>!
> but is there a point to this?
> 
> While you and I may be in agreement that the word isn't that bad, it also may be offensive and innapropriate to some. Yes, we do have younger members here, so we try to watch out for them too. Thanks for understanding.
> ...


Actually there is a point to be made here. The point being that while this place has the appearance of being a public board, it is really not.
Ron buys and pays and for it without advertising, which up to a point has been very nice and thanks Ron. No ads, privately paid for, only recently asking for donations which I'm sure don't come close to covering the cost of the place,
I do wonder if there is an angle here, but I don't see one up to this point, but the amount of editing and over moderation makes me wonder what is going on and if there is more than the eye can see.
Some of the editing and more properly put, censorship, is a bit more PC than what would be deemed necessary by many. People including myself who express themselves normally are getting "edited" much more than anything I have seen on any other site.
It would seem this is more of a semi-private forum with very strict rules than a public forum.
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Read the Guidelines and the Terms of Use and you wouldn't have a problem. They are clearly defined for you. Your insinuations are unwarranted.


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

If you feel you're being unfairly edited or targeted please let us know. Contact an admin or CM, like myself, and we'll look into it. Sorry you're having a tough time, but it really is a public board, otherwise you and I wouldn't be here. No angles. Just Hoops talk. I hate to say it, but if the moderating is a problem, there are a number of other sites out there, just like you mentioned. Personally, I haven't found too many more that actually talk about BASKETBALL, without the immaturity of some posting their first four letter words while mommy isn't home. Granted, this place has it's problem children too, but we are trying to do our best. Please let me know via PM when you feel you're being censored or overly edited. Thanks.

Peace.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Read the Guidelines and the Terms of Use and you wouldn't have a problem. They are clearly defined for you. Your insinuations are unwarranted.


I wasn't innsinuating, I thought I was very clear. The guidelines and terms of use as strictly applied by the moderators make this a semi-public, highly comtrolled forum that I no longer respect. Please delete my membership.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't innsinuating, I thought I was very clear. The guidelines and terms of use as strictly applied by the moderators make this a semi-public, highly comtrolled forum that I no longer respect. Please delete my membership.


I will make mention of this to the admins... Good luck in your future posting elsewhere.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Halberstam's Pulitzer was for Journalism. Regardless of the subject for which he garnered it, it reflects his integrity and his journalistic ability. If you want to believe that Krause's "allies" did not participate in any sort of interview with Halberstam then you are entitled to that _opinion_.


That Krauses allies did or did not participate is a fact, because it can be proven true or not. Thats just splittin' hairs though...

As for the Pulitzer prize, thats based on *INDIVIDUAL WORKS * and not on the career of a writer.



> What are the criteria for the judging of The Pulitzer Prizes?
> There are no set criteria for the judging of the Prizes. The definitions of each category (see entry forms or History page) are the only guidelines. It is left up to the Nominating Juries and The Pulitzer Prize Board to determine exactly what makes *a work* "distinguished."


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> etting upset over being edited for violating the Guidelines is immature.


FWIW---name calling by managment usually upsets the worker bees...
<font color=blue>(FWIW, He called "the action of getting upset" immature, NOT the poster. There is a HUGE difference.
Since this post was NOT on topic, but also wrongfully "baiting" a mod in public instead of by pm, I replied in public, as well.) TR, administrator.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ possibly it was not the words but the context it was used in?


What ? The context of the successful ingredients for a soap opera ? Lighten up on the caffeine Chief



> The fact that you chose the turn of phrase to elicit a certain response should be where you start in understanding why it was edited.


I write off the top of my head and primarily to inform , exchange and entertain - never for the purpose of "eliciting a certain response" in my choice of colour

:no: 
The personal attacks and derogatory statements won't be tolerated. Tooling around and saying it in a "witty" way does not make it ok. If you've got a problem with that, please PM me. - *MikeDC*  



> You may not agree with the Guidelines but they are posted for a reason.


Could not give a rats bottom and frankly I should not need to as I believe I have proved myself over to me to be someone of worthy converse - of which this is not



> Getting upset over being edited for violating the Guidelines is immature.


I was not ticked actually until I read this post of yours which was quite unnecessary and way off base in painting me <font color=blue>(Actually, he was calling your action or reaction immature - NOT you personally, There is a difference. TR, adminstrator)</font>as being "immature" by getting upset - that is why I put the smiley face at the end of my post so trigger finger mods would not misunderstand, build a mountain out of a molehill - thus making a regular poster ( posters ) ticked in their presumptious misrepresentation of regular poster's supposed mood a to being edited.

I could not have cared less - what is annoying is the call to arms of Dudley Do Right and his merry crew browbeating such rapscalian rascals such as myself into withering submission.

How about y'all lighten up on the Mod Kool Aid and take a chill pill.



> Just acknowledge it and move on.


Acknowledged ( when there was not one necessary in the first place as it was not an issue for me ) . Moved.



> On a side note the use of that term is on the banned list of words by the FCC. Go figure.


Not in my country . Go figure that . More socially progressive or more from the gutter with damnation eternal ?

Who can tell and what's more who the F cares?\

Thank you and goodnight y'all a wonderful audience


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I will make mention of this to the admins... Good luck in your future posting elsewhere.


C'mon Retro 

I know you and Song have your thing but your better than this


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Anyhoo back to our regular programming..

BCH,

I had nominated two hypothetical risk scenarios that JK could have taken

Your displeasure at his stewardship is obvious - what specifically do you think he could have done/should have done in embracing risk to your satisfaction

I would be interested to hear your thoughts with a view to some stimulating basketball discussion continuing on what was proving to be an enjoyable thread before the sidetrack ( and GB's pleas for links )


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Anyhoo back to our regular programming..
> 
> BCH,
> ...


Well ****. I wake up and see that this mess was still going on. I am tempted to close this thread and re-open it in a new topic to avoid the mess, but lets see how things go. Getting back to the topic at hand:

As for myself, I find it very hard to say Krause did a good job, but I also recognize that if i attempt to play the hindsight game, posters will come out of the woodwork to say whatever alternate version of history I propose is either A) Not possible, or B) Not as good. Someone wil surely say, well, if you had done something to improve earlier, you wouldn't have the talent you have now. For example, if you had traded Pippen to the Lakers for Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell, then you wouldn't have gotten Brand. Well, that's true, but maybe we would have gotten Andre Miller. Or McGrady. Just pointing out that hindsight is not linear.

With that being said, I will put forth several things that I read in major publications as being feasible going back to the point where we started rebuilding, any of which may have significantly changed our rebuilding process.

1. Reinsdorf forcing Krause into retirement instead of siding with him.
2. Trading Pippen to the Lakers for real players (Jones and Campbell).
3. Signing Antonio McDyess, who apparently voiced interest in playing here.
4. Trading Kukoc to the lakers for real players (Jones and Campbell).
5. Drafting Steve Francis.
6. Trading for Steve Francis after the Grizzlies drafted him... damn, imagine a Brand/Francis combo.
7. Drafting Mike Miller instead of Fizer or Big Jake instead of Dalibor.
8. The second round? Michael Redd, nough said.
9. Trading Brent Barry for Hersey Hawkins. Ugh.
10. ERob.
11. Not going after the "full-boat" FAs.
12. (Thankfully we didnt) sign Tim Thomas or Glen Rice!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> But this being said, I am not near as optimistic as other fans in this board. The Bulls, sans Cleveland, have been the worst team in the NBA for 4 seasons. Period. Its a long *ss road to the top, and just because we are 'young' and have 'lots of potential', doestn' entitle us to a championship team in a few years time. I love how so many here boast that the Bulls are '3 years from the Finals'. How many other teams are saying the same thing? All of them?!! If we had some proven young talent already on board (ala Indiana) then we might be able to say such a thing, but we do not.
> 
> ...



Amen. Truly an excellent analysis of the state of the Bulls.

All this roster work has hopefully put the Bulls back in the mix of things, just like most other teams in the league. We have nowhere to go but up in the standings. We will go up in the standings. If every one of our young guys develop to 100% of their potential, or if JK is crafty enough to keep the 100% developers and make a blockbuster trade for the stragglers (and just who is who on this roster is discussed in great enough detail elsewhere to get into it here) we MAY have a SHOT to go all the way. To build a dynasty team in the NBA is an exception, not a rule. To rebuild a dynasty is even more rare. I hope for, but don't necessarily expect Krause to be successful in the quest for another championship. If he does succeed, half of Chicago, and all of the Chicago sports writers had better line up to kiss JK's *ss. And Jay Mariotti had better plan on getting in line twice.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Anyhoo back to our regular programming..
> 
> BCH,
> ...


First let me say that I was not pointing you out for being angry. I never though you were. That was for someone else. I know you disagree with the editing of what you wrote but I hardly felt you were angry over it. Take that for what it is worth. My "supercilious" guidance is nothing more than pointing out to you there is a Guidline for you to follow. Its up to you to do so or not. It is obviously a judgement call and the moderator that edited you left his name. I encourage you to discuss it with him. You may feel I am being patronizing but that is hardly the case. I am just not responding in the same flippant manner as you are.

Second, Your Camby proposal is exactly the sort of risk that Krause would not take in my opinion. It is definitely of the sort that would raise expectations to a degree that he would have to have the team start producing significantly more wins. Camby is a player with great game and a history of injury. If he is past the injuries then he is a great pickup and well worth what it might take to get him right now. 

Please understand I believe that Krause does risky things but ones that have no immediate payoff. He will take a risk in trading an All-Star like Brand for a HS kid because it reduces expectations. With the years until expected payoff, Krause can change course at any time in the interim and to me he has shown he is more than willing to do so. 

The spin is that he is finding the right players to get a title. MY response is that he never gave the players he had enough time to do anything. Especially when Floyd was the coach. That was a complete debacle of Krause's making.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Krause takes risks to improve the team and to better it's chances of getting more rings.

Period.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't innsinuating, I thought I was very clear. The guidelines and terms of use as strictly applied by the moderators make this a semi-public, highly comtrolled forum that I no longer respect. Please delete my membership.


Songcycle, usually I do not have a problem with your posts, for the most part I enjoy them. however, the usage of the words that were edited by others, and myself for that matter, I find to be very offensive. I am not a child, I am 51 years old and find the verbage demeaning and obscene. It is your choice as to whether or not you post here again, but, the guidelines, however you may view them, have been here before, during, and will be here after you leave. Before too long, with activity through writing such as has been displayed in this thread, and this site would have turned into an all out, out of control dirty name calling web site. I say move on.


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> Please understand I believe that Krause does risky things but ones that have no immediate payoff.


For four seasons naysayers and pundits like Sam Smith have been measuring JK's performance based on the "immediate payoff." The Bulls haven't been looking for an immediate payoff. You guys are simply not on the same page as Bulls management. Your rationale, that the Bulls are purposely "deflecting blame" to stretch a highly-profitable losing era for as long as possible is... as FJ aptly put it ... the makings for a bad soap opera. Can I say bodacious boobulars?

All anyone needs to know is that within four seasons, JK has turned Kukoc, Longley, Harper, and Kerr into JWill, Rose, Curry, and Chandler. For those who want to go the "best of both worlds" rebuilding route, ask yourself if you want to trade places with the Wiz. After three seasons, MJ has converted Strickland, Richmond, and Howard into a bag of magic beans. Are the Wiz also trying to stretch a highly-profitable losing era for as long as possible? Is MJ's play designed to provide Wiz fans false hope? Can I say upper frontal superstructure?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The Wizards situation is completely different. Those guys had a chance to make a run and they failed miserably. MJ came out and set the expectation that they would make the playoffs. He was wrong and the players were not up to the task with Strickland never having met a hotdog he didn't want to eat or a DUI he didnt want to get. Howard's contract was an albatross at that point with too many years left. Richmond was a shell of what he was even the year before.

Apples and Oranges.


----------

