# Paxson losing his cool



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Arn Tellem, the agent for Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford, met with Bulls general manager John Paxson and attended Tuesday's game. The informal meeting had been scheduled for weeks, but an incident from last Friday also came into discussion. A frustrated Paxson angrily challenged Curry and Crawford in the postgame locker room following a bad loss to Portland. Paxson later apologized to both players for losing his cool. Tellem will be negotiating contract extensions for both players at some point.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbits,1,7043703.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Anyone think is about to lose his patience with these two?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Anyone think is about to lose his patience with these two?


Umm, it sounds like he already has. And I'm almost there, too...at least as far as Eddy is concerned.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> Umm, it sounds like he already has. And I'm almost there, too...at least as far as Eddy is concerned.


Why? I'd like to hear a detailed answer if I may.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Sounds to me that he's moving closer to a decision to blow this team up and rebuild with his kind of players.

For example, take a look at the players he's added since he replaced Krause: Hinrich, Pippen, Gill, Davis, Williams, Dupree. Is there a common denominator at work here? From what I can tell every one of them are hard working, defensive-minded, agressive individuals who for the most part have never shied away from doing the dirty work on the court even if it means puting your body at risk because of the pounding it takes in order to execute those "dirty" assignments successfully. Simply put, would you describe Crawford's and Curry's playing styles as similar to those players I've already mentioned?

Let me put it another way. Having seen the kind of players Paxson prefers based on his acquisitions so far, if Curry and Crawford were playing on different teams, do you honestly think Paxson would have any interest in trading for either one of them?

Curry and Crawford have had three and four years respectively to show Chicago fans and everyone associated with the Bulls organization what kind of moxie they're made of. Performance inconsistencies aside (because of youth, inexperience, etc) both players have displayed on-court demeanors more akin to a butterfly than a bull. What makes anyone think that their personalities and their basic natures will ever change?

These are not Paxson's kinds of players. Color them gone at the first opportunity. Paxson wants no part of perpetuating Krause's failed legacy. What Paxson wants is a team that embodies the same kind of winning attitude and mental and physical toughness we saw on display by the Pistons ballclub at the UC last night. You don't win in the NBA with soft players, no matter how talented or loaded with potential they may be. The Krause legacy will sputter to an end no later than this summer. It seems inevitable.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? I'd like to hear a detailed answer if I may.


My advise for you Retro: just go for one Bulls game and you will see all your “detailed” answers...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

5 star post C Blizzy. We have had this discussion many times and I could not have said things any better myself.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> My advise for you Retro: just go for one Bulls game and you will see all your “detailed” answers...


I've been, have you? 

Why is it that when I ask this question, no one will answer it? Or when they do, all they can says is bad defense, no fire and short answers like this. 

For one, I'd love to see some true analysis on the subject, not just some chicken**** two word answer.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I've been, have you?
> ...


My second advise for you Retro: when you are watching Bulls game, keep your eyes open! Do not follow the sleep!
Retro, the point is you are big Eddy Curry fan and I’m not any more. You are still drinking “Eddy=next Shaq” lemonade and I’m not…


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? I'd like to hear a detailed answer if I may.


Forgive the following rant...

Retro, as a diehard Bulls fan, it is hard to keep having petience with this team after being so bad for so long. It's not like we just haven't been a top team for the last six years; we've been just about the worst every season. What makes it worse is I honestly can't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet. Last year, I thought I saw it, be it very dim, but it seemed to be there. Then, we come into this season and play horribly. We lose our coach. We lose two of our top players from last year. Our young guys who looked so promising at the end of last season have seemed to take a step backward for the most part. Our fans boo. This team hasn't been fun to watch, apart from spurts here or there. We're 12-26. That means we're on pace for 25 or so wins; 5 less than last season. Frustration builds when you spend so much of your time following a team and you continulously see a bad product. I realize I'm not a player, coach or executive, but what happens with this team personally affects me because, for some stupid reason, I care. Because of that, patience wears thin...ESPECIALLY when I see a guy like Eddy Curry, with all the talent and potential in the world, playing horribly and showing no desire or fire. Just yesterday, he admitted he hasn't been working hard, for christ's sake! My god, most of the fans work harder being fans than he does as a player! Excuse my language, but that's [edit]ing nuts!!!:upset: I try to keep my patience and keep telling myself the guy is only 21...and the team's core is still young...and we've had key injuries...and we have new players...and we have a new coach...and frickin etc. Forgive me for not wanting to think of excuses anymore as to why we still suck so badly. I just want to see a good team and watch good basketball. That's all I want! I don't need a championship this year or the next...I just want to enjoy all the time I put into this team. Lately, I'm not and that, in itself, might be the most frustrating part.

So, Retro, that's why I'm starting to lose patience with this team and, more specifically, Eddy.

Also, forgive me for any grammatical or spelling errors I may have made. There's no way I'm proofreading this frickin thing.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> Forgive the following rant...
> ...


This represents a logical, impassioned plea from a true die-hard Bulls fan. And I think this accurately portrays the feelings of most Bulls fans who have both relished the good times and loyally survived the bad times as well. The question PC asks is a legitimate one: "After 6 years, where's the light at the end of the tunnel?"


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

Do Not Trade Curry Until Next Season!!!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> For example, take a look at the players he's added since he replaced Krause: Hinrich, Pippen, Gill, Davis, Williams, Dupree. Is there a common denominator at work here? From what I can tell every one of them are hard working, defensive-minded, agressive individuals who for the most part have never shied away from doing the dirty work on the court even if it means puting your body at risk because of the pounding it takes in order to execute those "dirty" assignments successfully. Simply put, would you describe Crawford's and Curry's playing styles as similar to those players I've already mentioned?
> 
> Let me put it another way. Having seen the kind of players Paxson prefers based on his acquisitions so far, if Curry and Crawford were playing on different teams, do you honestly think Paxson would have any interest in trading for either one of them?


 

Awesome.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> My second advise for you Retro: when you are watching Bulls game, keep your eyes open! Do not follow the sleep!
> Retro, the point is you are big Eddy Curry fan and I’m not any more. You are still drinking “Eddy=next Shaq” lemonade and I’m not…


Point proven. Thanks for playing.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

no i say trade him now,why?there is still doubt about EC and JC as to if they will become great or not and right now that doubt is a great thing if you want to trade him now,wait till next yr and i would say everyone will know for sure and they will be worthless..

on another board i USED to be apart of i tolled them last yr 06/03 that EC and JC was going to bust this yr and that we should get rid of these 2 now(last yr we could have traded both for a superstar) but they said i was full of SH*& well after a yr look where we are....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm frustrated with this team too. But I won't let my frustration cloud my judgement. The Bulls have hitched their wagons to the three C's for better or worse. This season it just so happens to be worse. And there are plenty of reasons, or excuses if you prefer, why it is the way it is. That doesn't make it any easier to watch Curry go out and play like he belongs in the WNBA. Nevertheless, trading any of the C's right now would be a move precipitated out of impatience rather than rational thought. And I don't think that Paxson can deal any or all of the three C's and bring in a core that will be a playoff or championship caliber team. I just don't see it happening. Sure, he could deal EC & JC and get someone who could make the Bulls respectable in the short term. But, I think that if the Bulls are going to have long term success, it's gonna fall on the three C's. Otherwise we are doomed to many years of mediocrity. Granted mediocrity is better than what we have right now but I STILL think our players will develop if we give them time instead of trying to think of a good trade for them after every Bulls loss. Did we really expect to beat the Pistons last night? I didn't. 

Another thing, why is Paxson in the locker room yelling at players? Isn't that the coaches job if it needs to be done? I think Paxson needs to back off and let Skiles do his job while Pax does his own job myself.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Sounds to me that he's moving closer to a decision to blow this team up and rebuild with his kind of players.
> 
> For example, take a look at the players he's added since he replaced Krause: Hinrich, Pippen, Gill, Davis, Williams, Dupree. Is there a common denominator at work here? From what I can tell every one of them are hard working, defensive-minded, agressive individuals who for the most part have never shied away from doing the dirty work on the court even if it means puting your body at risk because of the pounding it takes in order to execute those "dirty" assignments successfully. Simply put, would you describe Crawford's and Curry's playing styles as similar to those players I've already mentioned?
> ...


Damn fine post my man.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Point proven. Thanks for playing.


Yep! As articulate as a NY cab driver as always!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> Forgive the following rant...
> 
> ...


Nice post. I'll throw up some comments after my meeting.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Sounds to me that he's moving closer to a decision to blow this team up and rebuild with his kind of players.
> 
> For example, take a look at the players he's added since he replaced Krause: Hinrich, Pippen, Gill, Davis, Williams, Dupree. Is there a common denominator at work here? From what I can tell every one of them are hard working, defensive-minded, agressive individuals who for the most part have never shied away from doing the dirty work on the court even if it means puting your body at risk because of the pounding it takes in order to execute those "dirty" assignments successfully. Simply put, would you describe Crawford's and Curry's playing styles as similar to those players I've already mentioned?
> ...


This is a great point and I couldn't agree more with your view of Paxson's thinking.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Nevertheless, trading any of the C's right now would be a move precipitated out of impatience rather than rational thought. And I don't think that Paxson can deal any or all of the three C's and bring in a core that will be a playoff or championship caliber team. I just don't see it happening. Sure, he could deal EC & JC and get someone who could make the Bulls respectable in the short term. But, I think that if the Bulls are going to have long term success, it's gonna fall on the three C's. Otherwise we are doomed to many years of mediocrity. Granted mediocrity is better than what we have right now but I STILL think our players will develop if we give them time instead of trying to think of a good trade for them after every Bulls loss.


See maybe I am wrong but if Paxson can find the right trade trading EC and JC(and whatever filler is needed) for a superstar stud wing player could make us more than a mediocre team. We still would have a young talented Hinrich at PG and Chandler at PF along with our upcoming high lottery draft pick. That is 3 young talents, a superstart proven perimeter threat, and several quality veterans like Davis,Gill,Pippen, and JYD. That is a very nice team if you get the right guy back in a trade. Now who is this guy? I don't know that is the big question right now. But if you get the right person that is a contender now and in the future. There would still be a lot of room for growth in that team with KH,Tyson, and 2004 draft choice. You can only have so much developing talent at once.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

ok it is official-

Paxson is an idiot


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> See maybe I am wrong but if Paxson can find the right trade trading EC and JC(and whatever filler is needed) for a superstar stud wing player could make us more than a mediocre team. We still would have a young talented Hinrich at PG and Chandler at PF along with our upcoming high lottery draft pick. That is 3 young talents, a superstart proven perimeter threat, and several quality veterans like Davis,Gill,Pippen, and JYD. That is a very nice team if you get the right guy back in a trade. Now who is this guy? I don't know that is the big question right now. But if you get the right person that is a contender now and in the future. There would still be a lot of room for growth in that team with KH,Tyson, and 2004 draft choice. You can only have so much developing talent at once.


Maybe your right. I don't know. I just don't see any player out there like that that is available. And I still firmly believe that Curry could STILL be dominant one day, even though he isn't now. We both have totally different feelings on JC so I won't even mention him. I would hate it if we traded these guys away and they blow up somewhere else. 

Really, a big part of the problem to me seems to be the Bulls orginization, or lack thereof. I mean we get reports coming out about players not working hard. We get reports from Skiles that the conditioning wasn't there and that the players weren't used to practicing hard. We have had 3 different coaches and 2 different GM's in a pretty short time. Our roster turnover is the biggest in the league. Put simply, we have been turning into a farm club for other NBA teams. Not competent enough to develop our own players. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was some of the "country club" entitlement mentality that Skiles was brought in in Phoenix to clean up too. Anyway, it seems that Skiles was a step in the right direction and he clearly wants to make guys work now and the team seems to be playing better. What can we do with an offseason where players really do work? If ANY of the players have a bad attitude or aren't willing to do what it takes in terms of practice or conditioning then they should be traded...period. I simply don't think that is the problem. I think the problem is more that the players haven't been given the structure and support necessary to suceed. Skiles is making them put in the work and it SHOULD have been this way since the day these players were drafted!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> See maybe I am wrong but if Paxson can find the right trade trading EC and JC(and whatever filler is needed) for a superstar stud wing player could make us more than a mediocre team. We still would have a young talented Hinrich at PG and Chandler at PF along with our upcoming high lottery draft pick. That is 3 young talents, a superstart proven perimeter threat, and several quality veterans like Davis,Gill,Pippen, and JYD. That is a very nice team if you get the right guy back in a trade. Now who is this guy? I don't know that is the big question right now. But if you get the right person that is a contender now and in the future. There would still be a lot of room for growth in that team with KH,Tyson, and 2004 draft choice. You can only have so much developing talent at once.


The problem with us Bulls fans is that you just might be right.

But we've heard it and said it ourselves so many times.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/stats/
http://www.nba.com/bulls/stats/stats_2000.html

Pre Baby Bulls-era, in the Mercer/Brand/Artest/Brad Miller era, let's see how different our stats were. True, they only won 15 games. Night in and night out, they didn't know how to finish a game. But where are we statistically? 

That season had a lot of hope too. Young talent like Crawford, Artest, and Fizer. Solid players like Brand and the improving Miller, along with a scorer in Mercer and decent role players like Ruffin and Hoiberg. Maybe the upside wasn't as high, but that team was certainly headed up and not down.

And again, maybe the worst thing is that we were right back then to be hopeful, and we are right currently to be hopeful, but that the management lacks the patience to let that hope be fulfilled.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok for what it's worth - over on the RealGM boards the poster JCBIGSIS - who is Jamals older sister - said that after Pax went off on them, Jamal LAUGHED. no other info was provided. but i am seriously disturbed by this.
check it out.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> The problem with us Bulls fans is that you just might be right.
> ...


There are some differences. Brand, Artest and Miller were mentally tough players. We knew that from the start. Their failings of youth were never properly addressed by Krause. Where was the injection of competent veteran players who could challenge these guys for PT as well as instruct them in the ways of being a successful pro? They were given a rookie head coach. And they were surrounded by marginal veterans in the twilight of their careers: Armstrong, Simpkins, Hawkins, Brown and Maloney. C'mon, a lot of these guys never would have made another NBA roster at the time.

If you'd kept them around and brought in players like Jerome Williams, Antonio Davis, Scottie Pippen, Kendall Gill, you might have seen them start to produce effectively and consistently as a unit. If you'd given them a coach who was familiar with the NBA instead of having to undergo his own OJT maybe we could have seen some forward progress.

But Krause was unable to procure the players he really needed to surround those young guys with. And while we're at it, look at the assistant coaching staff he handed Floyd: Cartwright, Berry and Johnson. How many of them are still drawing NBA paychecks?

Krause messed up this organization from the moment he undertook the rebuilding process. I'm not suggesting that his decision to retool was wrong. But his methodology was an absolute failure. And after 6 years, where are we?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Blizzy and Retro, I'll separate the two players for a minute. Just because they're friends and young and don't give 100% does not mean they need to be treated the same by the administration. 

If Eddy Curry maximizes his potential, he could and should be the second best or best center in the league. For the record, Yao Ming is experiencing many of the same problems as Curry right now, with lack of energy and fire leading to mediocre play. Let's not suggest that the exasperated Jeff Van Gundy would ever try to trade Yao. There are special circumstances, times to break every hard and fast rule. Sometimes Eddy Curry makes me want to rip my hair out. But I do not want to give up on him. Plus, his contract situation is different than Jamal’s. We can give him at least another full year to further reach his potential and learn to play the right way. If it doesn’t work out, we could try to trade him before the deadline, and trust me there would be more interest in him than #1. 

Which brings us to Jamal. I’m not going to contribute to the Jamal ripfest right now. I think most would agree that he doesn’t have nearly the potential vs. the people that play the same position in the league (be it the 1 or the 2) that Eddy does. If he’s not Pax’s and Skiles’ guy, we can trade him now. If the management does not want to sign him long term, we’ve gotta do what we’ve gotta do.

So why does Jamal get so much of the crap on this board and not Eddy? Well, it’s because Eddy’s 6’11” with good athleticism, a feathery touch, and the potential to dominate his league. Even if he takes 82 naps in the paint area each night, the management will show more patience with Eddy than with Jamal.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> ok for what it's worth - over on the RealGM boards the poster JCBIGSIS - who is Jamals older sister - said that after Pax went off on them, Jamal LAUGHED. no other info was provided. but i am seriously disturbed by this.
> check it out.


Last time Jamal laughed was when some media brought up the idea that Kirk was a better PG than he was. Hmm......


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

mizenkay can you provide a link to jcbigsis saying that. If that is true that is very disturbing. Wow I had no idea he was that immature.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Blizzy and Retro, I'll separate the two players for a minute. Just because they're friends and young and don't give 100% does not mean they need to be treated the same by the administration.
> 
> If Eddy Curry maximizes his potential, he could and should be the second best or best center in the league. For the record, Yao Ming is experiencing many of the same problems as Curry right now, with lack of energy and fire leading to mediocre play. Let's not suggest that the exasperated Jeff Van Gundy would ever try to trade Yao. There are special circumstances, times to break every hard and fast rule. Sometimes Eddy Curry makes me want to rip my hair out. But I do not want to give up on him. Plus, his contract situation is different than Jamal’s. We can give him at least another full year to further reach his potential and learn to play the right way. If it doesn’t work out, we could try to trade him before the deadline, and trust me there would be more interest in him than #1.
> ...


You are right.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> ok for what it's worth - over on the RealGM boards the poster JCBIGSIS - who is Jamals older sister - said that after Pax went off on them, Jamal LAUGHED. no other info was provided. but i am seriously disturbed by this.
> check it out.


I would have laughed too. JC played a very good game against Portland. Is he guilty by association with Curry who had a bad game because he is his best friend? WTF? 

Besides, if anyone should be yelling at anyone it should be Skiles not Paxson. For all Paxson knows Skiles might have patted JC's rear on the way back to the locker room and told him he was playing a good game!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> mizenkay can you provide a link to jcbigsis saying that. If that is true that is very disturbing. Wow I had no idea he was that immature.


http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=200647&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 


she chimes in on the second page.

but enough of this. unless we can read minds who knows what really went on. 

but it still disturbs me.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> There are some differences, Ace. Brand, Artest and Miller were mentally tough players. We knew that from the start. Their failings of youth were never properly addressed by Krause. Where was the injection of competent veteran players who could challenge these guys for PT as well as instruct them in the ways of being a successful pro? They were given a rookie head coach. And they were surrounded by marginal veterans in the twilight of their careers: Armstrong, Simpkins, Hawkins, Brown and Maloney. C'mon, a lot of these guys never would have made another NBA roster at the time.
> ...


Let me grip this.

What you're trying to say is that if Brand and Artest didn't have such a bad situation, that they would have gotten better.

However, I don't see how this situation now isn't as similarly tumultuous as it was with Brand and Artest.

While this team overall is more talented, we've also had more in-team turmoil. In those losing days, we pretty much knew Brand and Artest were the players. There was more continuity because it was settled that we were going nowhere. There was also more freedom to experiment. Nowadays Skiles has to keep this team he inherited after 16 games focused on this task of playoffs cause we set this as the goal.

Here's how the continuity has been disturbed.

First off, we've had a revolving door of leaders from Kukoc, Brand, Mercer, Rose in 6 seasons. It seems like they've had to learn their own way. 

In addition to this lack of a star, we also didn't have a stable amount of veterans that actually played.

I would also think it might have helped a little if the veterans you spoke about (Scottie, Kendall, JYD, etc) had more than one year with the Bulls. I don't think you plugged in the fact that these are all different personalities telling them different things and that it takes time to develop some chem. 

Thirdly, three coaches in 5 years. Each one has told them of different personalities and methods to succeed. Floyd thought it was simply about getting veterans. BC thought it was about trying harder. And Skiles seems to be about letting the guys discover for themselves at least for now.

Without continuity in anywhere it would seem sort of hard to be a consistent basketall player.


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Anyone think is about to lose his patience with these two?


I read that too en was (again) disappointed in our GM. This man has no class. People can criticize Krause as much as they want, but that doesn't make Pax a competent GM. K.C. Johnson had some interesting reflection on Pax's moves this season (trade & coach change):

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...swers,1,5918234.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines



> I've maintained all along that I think Paxson should've either made the coaching change or the trade but not both. But who am I to run the Bulls? I would've liked to see Cartwright get a chance to coach a more defensive-oriented team just as much as I would've liked to see Skiles coach Donyell Marshall and have some firepower at his disposal. I understand the reasons for both moves. But I think making both is asking a lot of a team to respond and still make the playoffs. As for changes since the moves, the Bulls are a better defensive team, obviously. How much of this is Skiles and how much of this is personnel is hard to determine. I think Skiles is an excellent coach. He has his players prepared, has their respect and always gets good shots off out-of-bounds plays after timeouts. You can tell he has passion for his job. And injuries have hurt the Bulls. But this whole season has been a case of bad timing and/or poor decisions.


Combine that with waiving Hassel for Lint, trading for Brunson and maybe even drafting another pg (apparently a good one, but still...) and I'm afraid we got ourselves a stinker (as a GM). I've got the feeling we were a lot better off the day Krause quit than we are now (and I'm not considering Jay's injury while making this judgement)

JMSO


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> ok for what it's worth - over on the RealGM boards the poster JCBIGSIS - who is Jamals older sister - said that after Pax went off on them, Jamal LAUGHED. no other info was provided. but i am seriously disturbed by this.
> check it out.


Its interesting to see that Jamal shares the same brain bandwidth as JCBIGTWIT


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>andras</b>!
> 
> Combine that with waiving Hassel for Lint, trading for Brunson and maybe even drafting another pg (apparently a good one, but still...) and I'm afraid we got ourselves a stinker (as a GM).


Isn't it Hassell for Dupree, isn't it?

Given that Krause's last 5 lottery draft picks were Fizer, Crawford, Chandler, Curry, and Williams, I feel pretty good about Pax and Hinrich.


----------



## WXHOOPS (Jan 15, 2004)

*Trade 'Em*

Very frustrating to watch these clowns. Lot's of potential and no idea what to do with it. I believe that T-MAC could be had for JC, EC, and E-Rob. However, this deal would have to be made as a sign and trade, being EC & JC are restricted FA's. E-Rob is just a throw in, that will give you plenty of cap space when his contract runs up.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Sounds to me that he's moving closer to a decision to blow this team up and rebuild with his kind of players.
> 
> For example, take a look at the players he's added since he replaced Krause: Hinrich, Pippen, Gill, Davis, Williams, Dupree. Is there a common denominator at work here? From what I can tell every one of them are hard working, defensive-minded, agressive individuals who for the most part have never shied away from doing the dirty work on the court even if it means puting your body at risk because of the pounding it takes in order to execute those "dirty" assignments successfully. Simply put, would you describe Crawford's and Curry's playing styles as similar to those players I've already mentioned?
> ...


This summer is too late 

You want to spear the Krause legacy ?

Its got to be done by the trade deadline

Why ?

If you don't want Jamal long term as a feature and don't think he's the type of person that you want to built into this team's personna then you have * severely limited * options signing and trading him * as there will be BYC issues involved * and this means you need to bring in a 3rd team with cap room to take out someone's else's trash 

It just won't happen 

You could let him go to a team under the cap and receive nothing after 4 years 

This team needs constant shock treatment until it registers that its for real 

Jamal goes now and I would persist with Eddy to see how he responds to his best pal being shipped ( I actually suspect they are not a good influence on each other ) and if the hopeless meandering git can't get it together by next season's mid year deadline - deal him and be rid of these two clowns forever

Incidentally , you would deal Eddy with ERob as they would both be expiring contracts to around $10M - a team that picks them up clears ERob and takes a flyer on Curry if he fails again on us next season 

But in the meantime - AD and Jamal 

What offers ?


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Isn't it Hassell for Dupree, isn't it?


no, it's not




> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Given that Krause's last 5 lottery draft picks were Fizer, Crawford, Chandler, Curry, and Williams, I feel pretty good about Pax and Hinrich.


as I already said: criticize Krause as much as you like, unfortunately that doesn't make Paxson any better




> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy!</b>!
> Sounds to me that he's moving closer to a decision to blow this team up and rebuild with his kind of players.
> 
> For example, take a look at the players he's added since he replaced Krause: Hinrich, Pippen, Gill, Davis, Williams, Dupree. Is there a common denominator at work here? From what I can tell every one of them are hard working, defensive-minded, agressive individuals who for the most part have never shied away from doing the dirty work on the court even if it means puting your body at risk because of the pounding it takes in order to execute those "dirty" assignments successfully. Simply put, would you describe Crawford's and Curry's playing styles as similar to those players I've already mentioned?


excellent post and I think you're right on. sounds a little (too much) like the Utah Jazz to me, a team I respect and is actually kinda refreshing in this league, but I'd never cheer for


----------



## krob (Jul 6, 2002)

all i have to say is that Pax should be getting on their ***... especially Crawford... neither has lived up to the hype.. and for as much as Jamal *****es, he shouldnt play like **** half of the time he does play


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

everyone is to blame. But perhaps Pax ought to look in the mirror rather then pointing fingers, which seems to be his favorite way of handling problems so far. We know Curry and Crawford can dominate cause we saw it last year. But they went away from what worked last year. And that cost BC is job, gave Curry the boo birds, got Crawford on the trading block. And in the end, it seems like Paxs fault to me.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> everyone is to blame. But perhaps Pax ought to look in the mirror rather then pointing fingers, which seems to be his favorite way of handling problems so far. We know Curry and Crawford can dominate cause we saw it last year. But they went away from what worked last year. And that cost BC is job, gave Curry the boo birds, got Crawford on the trading block. And in the end, it seems like Paxs fault to me.


I disagree. It is not up to the GM to tell players how to prepare for the trade they are paid to do. coaches make sure, players are doing what they are suppose to do. When do we hold players accountable? We have enabled them long enough imo. Blame Paxson if you want, but he inherited this team. Bad conditioning and all.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Trade 'Em*



> Originally posted by <b>WXHOOPS</b>!
> Very frustrating to watch these clowns. Lot's of potential and no idea what to do with it. I believe that T-MAC could be had for JC, EC, and E-Rob. However, this deal would have to be made as a sign and trade, being EC & JC are restricted FA's. E-Rob is just a throw in, that will give you plenty of cap space when his contract runs up.


Correction JC is restricted, this summer. Eddy is not until the end of next season or next summer.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. It is not up to the GM to tell players how to prepare for the trade they are paid to do. coaches make sure, players are doing what they are suppose to do. When do we hold players accountable? We have enabled them long enough imo. Blame Paxson if you want, but he inherited this team. Bad conditioning and all.



and its his job to keep players around in the summer to work out. strike number one for Pax. Changing the system that worked so well last year. Strike #2. Replacing the coach and half the team Strike 2.5? He is nearing the F for the year. and that is with a great pick of Hinrich


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> and its his job to keep players around in the summer to work out. strike number one for Pax.


Are you suggesting that in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement its within his legal purview to order them to spend the summer months conditioning at the Berto Center?



> Changing the system that worked so well last year. Strike #2.


How do you define "worked so well?" Weren't they 30-52 last year? And under the same system didn't they get off to a 4-12 start this season before any personnel/system changes were affected? A combined 34-66 record could possibly suggest that a few changes might be in order. 



> Replacing the coach and half the team Strike 2.5? He is nearing the F for the year. and that is with a great pick of Hinrich


Some people may have viewed last season's record as an improvement over previous seasons. No arguement here. However, all momentum seemed to vanish this season. In fact, after a 4-12 start it might be reasonable to say the ballclub in general and a number of players in particular seemed to regress. Are you suggesting that despite the poor start and everything that contributed to it management should have stayed the course?

Sorry, but I'm having a very difficult time seeing the rationale behind your assessment of Paxson's performance based on your statements in this post.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement its within his legal purview to order them to spend the summer months conditioning at the Berto Center?
> ...


You can ban players from working out at other places. Krause did it. pax didnt. and we are paying the price for it. Curry got hurt. Craw played streetball at Hoops. And Chandler didnt work on his strength. He himself said in the Tribune that he failed in this area

The Bulls finished last year 9-11. and could have easily been 13-7. They went away from what won them games at the end of last year. They abandoned the triangle at the end of last year. Thats a fact. This year, they went back to it. partially at Paxs request, partially at BCs stupidity. and they both should have gotten canned for stopping momentum

BC was a moron, but if you dont think Pax deserves atleast the same amount of blame, your kidding yourself. Who gives a guaranteed, uninsured contract to a guy that they only expected to play 50 games? Who signs a 2 guard who cant shoot and is 35 years old, especially when Lenard wanted to come to Chicago? Who fires the coach and makes a major trade the same day essentially? It was throwing in the towel for the season. Pax deserves a ton of blame. This club would be lucky to win 30 this year. It was his job to add a legit 3, alleviate the problem at the 4 and to make sure the coach put in a system that works. I am not Skiles hugest fan, but I give him credit for scraping the triangle as quick as he did. Though it still isnt fairly obvious what the Bulls are trying to do even now. Though SS needs a full training camp and 2 seasons to have his system in place. though there are suns fans and players who will still tell you they arent sure what his system is.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> You can ban players from working out at other places. Krause did it. pax didnt. and we are paying the price for it. Curry got hurt. Craw played streetball at Hoops. And Chandler didnt work on his strength. He himself said in the Tribune that he failed in this area


The kids were not at the Berto anymore Krause. Curry getting hit in eye by some object (a cell phone?) is now somehow Pax's fault. Please. 



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> The Bulls finished last year 9-11. and could have easily been 13-7. They went away from what won them games at the end of last year. They abandoned the triangle at the end of last year. Thats a fact. This year, they went back to it. partially at Paxs request, partially at BCs stupidity. and they both should have gotten canned for stopping momentum


Name one GM who ever got canned in less than 1 year on the job. It's never happened. 

And if Pax is so hot on the triangle, why did his hand-picked coach scrap it immeadietely.



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> BC was a moron, but if you dont think Pax deserves atleast the same amount of blame, your kidding yourself. Who gives a guaranteed, uninsured contract to a guy that they only expected to play 50 games? Who signs a 2 guard who cant shoot and is 35 years old, especially when Lenard wanted to come to Chicago?


Lenard got an extra couple of million from Denver than we could have given him. So if the worst thing that Pax did was gamble on Pip and sign Gil as insurance, I can live with than mistake. Chandler was just the other day saying how much he has learned from Pip.



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Who fires the coach and makes a major trade the same day essentially?


Hey, Pax set the new trend. Just ask Isaiah.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> The kids were not at the Berto anymore Krause. Curry getting hit in eye by some object (a cell phone?) is now somehow Pax's fault. Please.
> ...


So Pax is doing a great job? by the way, Curry got a finger in the eye at Hoops, thats what did him in. Pax even blames himself for that to an extent. and why was pax so adament about going back to the triangle this offseason? He should have nudged BC another way. He wont be fired. but he isnt doing a very good job either. BTW, imho, neither is Isiah.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. It is not up to the GM to tell players how to prepare for the trade they are paid to do. coaches make sure, players are doing what they are suppose to do. When do we hold players accountable? We have enabled them long enough imo. Blame Paxson if you want, but he inherited this team. Bad conditioning and all.


I have a hard time blaming players especially when they are slapped together by the general manager (and I oddly liked whatever it is Krause was doing things, player-wise, as opposed to everyone else in Chicago sports, maybe cause he absolutely confused me with all of his moves) for not having what it takes to win games. However, a lot of us felt that we have enough to win games and thus are beginning to hold the players accountable.

But IMHO, you hold players accountable when:

1) They fail in a program proven to be a winner.

2) When they clearly have the talent to win, but just don't.

So half blame management and half the blame to the players because this program hasn't proven to be a winner. It hasn't been the best environment for our guys.

But talent is supposed to transcend that horrible environment and bring us wins right ?

No.

Not when the talent is budding and second-tier. TD, Kobe, Pierce, TMac all have had the luxury of another star holding the team up while they were still growing, and they're first-tier stars. First-tier talent doesn't fail to shine, but second-tier has a bit more trouble. It's not true of all second-tier guys, but one good example is Jermaine O'Neal. 6 years of nothing. Then went to Indiana scoring 13 a game his first full year. And now he's exploded into the premier big man in the East for almost longer than we've had one coach.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> You can ban players from working out at other places. Krause did it. pax didnt. and we are paying the price for it. Curry got hurt. Craw played streetball at Hoops. And Chandler didnt work on his strength. He himself said in the Tribune that he failed in this area
> ...


You can't legally ban a player from working out wherever he chooses. You can insist on whatever you want, but in terms of authority the only real muscle behind that insistance is PT during the season. Its true that Paxson has expressed regret that he wasn't more demanding in terms of insisting that players follow a specific off-season workout regimen. But again, other than the forfeiture of playing time, there's not to much he can do about this issue. Oh, and as for Krause's attempts to "ban" players from working out at Hoops, it didn't work very well, did it? Most of the young Bulls players worked out there anyway, despite Krause's "ban." And just for the record, Krause's attitude towards Hoops went beyond his disdain for Jordan. The fact is players preferred Hoops over Berto for one very big reason: _"Location, location, location..."_ Berto is out in the boonies. Hoops is located near downtown Chicago. Most of the players maintain a couple of residences...a home in the suburbs somewhere and an apartment or townhome near Chicago's Loop. In the offseason the players will spend a lot of time in Chicago proper and its very convenient for them to roll out of bed and arrive at Hoops in a matter of minutes instead of fighting traffic to and from Berto. Without trying to sound facetious, might I suggest you check this out with your female pal on that other board to see if what I say is accurate. Building the Berto Center in Deerfield became a convenience for Krause but a logistics nightmare for everyone else.

As for that _strong finish_ last season, well lets just say its interesting that you used the Tribune article to chastise Paxson for not controlling the players' summer activities but you failed to note the following statement from the same article regarding last seasons end-of-the-year performance: Skiles also ridiculed the Bulls' strong finish to last season, saying dominant individual performances from Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford and Tyson Chandler came in "meaningless games." So much for the "strong finish" you referred to.

As for all the personnel moves you've chosen to critcize, we could go round and round on the perceived pros and cons and I doubt either one of us would convince the other. So I'll just leave you to your opinion. Though I will suggest that if you withdraw your implication that Paxson's a moron, I'll promise to abstain from using the words "Paxson" and "genius" in the same sentence for the time being. One quick observation though: I find it interesting that you state that Skiles needs a training camp and two full seasons to put his system in place, but you seem certain that Paxson should have been "canned for stopping momentum" after less than 9 months on the job as the Bulls GM. Just thought that was kind of interesting, if not inconsistent.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> You can't legally ban a player from working out wherever he chooses. You can insist on whatever you want, but in terms of authority the only real muscle behind that insistance is PT during the season. Its true that Paxson has expressed regret that he wasn't more demanding in terms of insisting that players follow a specific off-season workout regimen. But again, other than the forfeiture of playing time, there's not to much he can do about this issue. Oh, and as for Krause's attempts to "ban" players from working out at Hoops, it didn't work very well, did it? Most of the young Bulls players worked out there anyway, despite Krause's "ban." And just for the record, Krause's attitude towards Hoops went beyond his disdain for Jordan. The fact is players preferred Hoops over Berto for one very big reason: _"Location, location, location..."_ Berto is out in the boonies. Hoops is located near downtown Chicago. Most of the players maintain a couple of residences...a home in the suburbs somewhere and an apartment or townhome near Chicago's Loop. In the offseason the players will spend a lot of time in Chicago proper and its very convenient for them to roll out of bed and arrive at Hoops in a matter of minutes instead of fighting traffic to and from Berto. Without trying to sound facetious, might I suggest you check this out with your female pal on that other board to see if what I say is accurate. Building the Berto Center in Deerfield became a convenience for Krause but a logistics nightmare for everyone else.
> ...


Paxson and genius in the same sentence? And I am reaching. And what does Skiles know about the end of last year while I am asking? He wasnt here. and that was an obvious dig at BC for that. I seem to recall beating alot of teams who were jockeying for playoff position over that stretch. But I guess you believe everything you read. Before we go handing Pax GM of the year, what exactly has he done, other then drafting Hinrich to make this club better? Hmmm, Skiles might be a good find, key word might? He signed Pippen who is essentially going to be a DNP for 2 years. Gill is washed up. and drafted 2 more 4s in round 2. Maybe its you who ought to take a close look at the Bulls because they are actually taking a major step backwards this year from where they ended last year. And if the GM doesnt deserve some blame, then who does? Skiles? the players? everyone has blame for Curry and Crawford. But what about Pax? I am sure he himself would say that he has not done a good job.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson and genius in the same sentence? And I am reaching. And what does Skiles know about the end of last year while I am asking? He wasnt here. and that was an obvious dig at BC for that. I seem to recall beating alot of teams who were jockeying for playoff position over that stretch. But I guess you believe everything you read. Before we go handing Pax GM of the year, what exactly has he done, other then drafting Hinrich to make this club better? Hmmm, Skiles might be a good find, key word might? He signed Pippen who is essentially going to be a DNP for 2 years. Gill is washed up. and drafted 2 more 4s in round 2. Maybe its you who ought to take a close look at the Bulls because they are actually taking a major step backwards this year from where they ended last year. And if the GM doesnt deserve some blame, then who does? Skiles? the players? everyone has blame for Curry and Crawford. But what about Pax? I am sure he himself would say that he has not done a good job.


Temper, temper. :naughty: :grinning:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson and genius in the same sentence? And I am reaching. And what does Skiles know about the end of last year while I am asking? He wasnt here. and that was an obvious dig at BC for that. I seem to recall beating alot of teams who were jockeying for playoff position over that stretch. But I guess you believe everything you read. Before we go handing Pax GM of the year, what exactly has he done, other then drafting Hinrich to make this club better? Hmmm, Skiles might be a good find, key word might? He signed Pippen who is essentially going to be a DNP for 2 years. Gill is washed up. and drafted 2 more 4s in round 2. Maybe its you who ought to take a close look at the Bulls because they are actually taking a major step backwards this year from where they ended last year. And if the GM doesnt deserve some blame, then who does? Skiles? the players? everyone has blame for Curry and Crawford. But what about Pax? I am sure he himself would say that he has not done a good job.



Good call Rlucas. The Bulls as an orginization have been sort of like a dog chasing it's own tail of late. And I definitley agree with your observations. I don't live in Chicago but it seems that Chicago area fans are pretty straightforward about their sports. If a team doesn't play well, it's the players faults. No if's, ands, or buts, about it. And I think thats sort of a shortsighted blue collar view of things. The orginization has to put the players in a position to succeed first. They have to utilize the players strengths and minimize the players weaknesses and it seems that the Bulls are just constantly searching for an identity and a clue as to what they want to do. Skiles has made this team a better defensie club and thats probably a step in the right direction. But this team needs some roster balance. We need effective players like Posey and Lenard being brough in instead of Pippen and Gill who are pretty much on their last leg NBA wise. Sure the players bear some of the blame. They ARE the ones out there on the court. But this teams nucleus has 3 players that were anywhwere from 2-5 year projects when they were drafted. Now the franchise is getting impatient? WTF? If they didn't want to wait they shouldn't have drafted project players in the first place. BTW, I read that comment by Skiles and shook my head. I don't know what the hell he is talking about. The Bulls actually played teams jockeying for playoff spots! We knocked Philly out of home court advantage IN the playoffs for crying out loud. The games may have been meaningless in terms of the Bulls making the playoffs but they weren't meaningless for other teams.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think a big problem is been trying to develop way too many young players at one time. Big time projects in JC,Curry, and Chandler. Not to mention high lotto picks in Fizer,Williams(before the accident), and now Hinrich as well. Pick two young talents and surround them with veterans. They is why letting Fizer walk at years end and trading JC and Curry for a stud SG/SF makes sense to me. You would then have two young talents in Hinrich and Chandler surrounded by veteran players. Just makes more sense.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Temper, temper. :naughty: :grinning:


i have no beef with your opinions blizzy. but before you ridicule my opinions, take a look at the facts. A team this young and talented is about to take a step in the wrong direction this year. Not in the right direction. Everyone agrees that Curry, Chandler, Crawford and Hinrich are talented. But Pax, the genius, had a relatively simple job to do, that was get some wing guys in there, who could play (thats key), and he didnt do that. he went into camp with 5 PFs. Then he traded 2 PFs, for basically 2 more PFs. Does this make sense to you. In the process, getting rid of a wing player. Its crazy that our best wing guy is someone who last week was riding a bus in the NBDL. Pax had a job last summer. And instead of getting players who could help and win today, he went for guys that he had nostalgic feelings for. And that my friend, is not a good GM. Should he be fired? I think he probably should, but I know he wont. However, the question is, should he have been hired in the first place? The answer is no. Not at that time, with no knowledge of the college and european games and not really having a plan. His moves are all off the hip so far. Just hiring the guy without even talking to Tony Ronzone or RC Buford is just ridiculous. Pax should get as much blame as Cartwright, and what happened to Bill? JR also shares in the blame. The players share in the blame, but they arent the scapegoats that everyone makes them out to be. We saw what they could do in the right system, and no matter what Skiles says (and how would he know since he wasnt even there?), they played good ball. Period


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

rlucas, it is a commonly held opinion that games near the end of an NBA season mean less and yes this even involves games against playoff teams. I dno't buy into the 'jockeying for position' argument b/c if anything teams that have qualified for the playoffs are trying to get healthy first and win second.

The fact that the Bulls finished the last 20 games well last season is the most over-cited fact on these boards. Well we had essentially the same team and same coach to start out this season.. now why couldn't the Bulls carry it over? Oh... I know. Because this type of success doesn't carry over. Not when your young players have some sense of entitlement after finishing the previous season on a high note.

I will scratch up some articles to reinforce my point, but for the time being I'll leave this as is.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> rlucas, it is a commonly held opinion that games near the end of an NBA season mean less and yes this even involves games against playoff teams. I dno't buy into the 'jockeying for position' argument b/c if anything teams that have qualified for the playoffs are trying to get healthy first and win second.
> 
> The fact that the Bulls finished the last 20 games well last season is the most over-cited fact on these boards. Well we had essentially the same team and same coach to start out this season.. now why couldn't the Bulls carry it over? Oh... I know. Because this type of success doesn't carry over. Not when your young players have some sense of entitlement after finishing the previous season on a high note.
> ...


So what your saying is that NJ didnt really want to be the number one seed, or Philly didnt want homecourt advantage, or the pistons didnt want the number one seed? thats a farce. The bulls played well, dominated teams like the Lakers, beat Indiana, NJ and Philly. I guess that doesnt matter. Articles or not, thats just plainly wrong. The point is, the system was changed back to the traingles. Its was wrong. We also missed Jwill.  But this end of the season doesnt mean anything is mularkey.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

This talk of how Paxson has failed and such is crazy. He inherited what Krause had done. He is trying to fix and create a roster that he wants. This takes time. I honestly don't know what you expected him to do different from what he has so far. The only thing that maybe can be questioned is signing Pippen. Him being out for injuries has hurt. But Gill has been a good sign. The drafting of Kirk looks fantastic. Rose had to go and I for one like what we have in return. Losing Marshall hurt but getting rid of Rose makes it worth it. He is not done either IMO. He has more moves on the way. Lets see what he does and go from there. This roster is not a complete finished product. He knows that and will correct it. Oh and he does a plan trust me.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Ace,

I take it you're not a bears fan. From what I could gather, the problems with the Bears rest completely with the coaches and ownership. Jaron and Shoop were basically public enemies number one and two. The players had almost no culpability in this instance.

I think it's too narrow of a view to state the the organization is at fault. Might it be that Pax is simply in the throes of cleaning up a mess made by his predacessor? Being an armchair GM is all well and good and we can all pontificate on the questionable moves made by our beloved GM, but in the end the call is his and not ours. I think for the first time in six years this team is finally getting some sort of an ID. I directly relate that to the change in guard at the GM and coaching level. In my book, that's a positive. For six years this team has wallowed in indefference and it has reflected in the players and their efforts, both in game and off-season. I'm willing to give these guys some time to see if they can't stem the culture of losing and instill some good, solid work habits. From my view here in sunny, warm Olrando it looks like we've got a few more years of frustration ahead of us and hopefully things can turn around.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Pax had a job last summer. And instead of getting players who could help and win today, he went for guys that he had nostalgic feelings for. And that my friend, is not a good GM. Should he be fired? I think he probably should, but I know he wont. However, the question is, should he have been hired in the first place? The answer is no. Not at that time, with no knowledge of the college and european games and not really having a plan. His moves are all off the hip so far.


That's my complaint.

I don't agree with all of what you said, but Pax has come across to me as having a very reactionary streak.

*Fundamentally, we mustn't forget than when Skiles ridicules the faith the 3Cs placed in their strong finishes last year, he's really ridiculing Paxson.* Because it was Paxson, as the guy in charge, who more than anyone else had to drink the Kool-Aid and believe these guys were ready to step up and be stars. He is more than anyone responsible for the increased expectations, because he believed they would be met and he fed them.

*EVERY move from that point has compounded and complicated this initial judgement*.

1. That's why he brought in older role-players like Gill and Pippen... because he thought that Curry, Chandler, and Crawford were ready to take it to another level.

2. That's essentially the inference from the trade and the coaching change. 

3. So now here we are at a crossroads. Pax helped create this monster. Expectations were that the 3Cs were going to be good. They aren't, at least not in the near future. So what can be done?

C Blizzy, I think, implies Pax should think about chucking them and rebuilding again. *I'm VERY concerned that he wants to chuck these guys for not living up to expectations while wholly failing to realize his expectations were probably unrealistic in the first place.* That is, recognizing that a big part of the problem is his doing.

Why does it matter whether he recognizes this?

Well first, because he didn't recognize it sooner, look at some of the players we have. Gill, Pip, AD, JYD- these are guys who are older players and players who need to fit around star players to be most effective. The idea is that by this point, the 3Cs were gonna be stars, so these would be good fits.

That idea, though, appears to be flailing, if not failing. And personally, I don't think any combination of the 3Cs is going to get back the kind of star player that Pax thought they were going to be. Hence, the role player brigade is going to come up short, and I don't see any short-term fix for that.

The only way it can be fixed is to get better players. I don't see any evidence that we can get any players for the 3Cs that will be better than what they are (even though I do have some serious doubts about what they are and what they will be). Thus, I see no reason to trade them. If an offer came around for a top notch guy, I'd certainly consider it (say, Curry, Chandler, ERob, Fizer for McGrady and Steven Hunter), but I don't see any forthcoming. That'd be my first option, but I see it as an unrealistic one, because I don't think guys like TMac or Pierce are for sale.

Thus, what we need to do is try turn some of our fringe players (who were brought in to fill roles around stars that don't exist) into younger vets who might carry some of the load- Fizer, Gill, Blount, AD, Pip (although I think it very unlikely the last two are moved unless they so desire it because of off-court reasons)- these guys might have some value to teams seeking cap room and teams seeking heady vets for the playoff stretch. The realistic and right move, I think, is to try and get a couple of young vets for teams like this... a Posey, Pavlovic, Brent Barry, or Hedo Turkoglu (or better yet, two of them). These guys would be stabilizing influences and, by helping us win more, they would reduce the pressure of (falsely) high expectations being placed on the 3Cs.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> This talk of how Paxson has failed and such is crazy. He inherited what Krause had done. He is trying to fix and create a roster that he wants. This takes time. I honestly don't know what you expected him to do different from what he has so far. The only thing that maybe can be questioned is signing Pippen. Him being out for injuries has hurt. But Gill has been a good sign. The drafting of Kirk looks fantastic. Rose had to go and I for one like what we have in return. Losing Marshall hurt but getting rid of Rose makes it worth it. He is not done either IMO. He has more moves on the way. Lets see what he does and go from there. This roster is not a complete finished product. He knows that and will correct it. Oh and he does a plan trust me.


the only plan that we know for a fact that Pax has is to bring back every former bull and give them a sweetheart deal. Kukoc has to be next on his list (and arguably the one that makes the most sense). So far I havent seen an original thought.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that NJ didnt really want to be the number one seed, or Philly didnt want homecourt advantage, or the pistons didnt want the number one seed? thats a farce. The bulls played well, dominated teams like the Lakers, beat Indiana, NJ and Philly. I guess that doesnt matter. Articles or not, thats just plainly wrong. The point is, the system was changed back to the traingles. Its was wrong. We also missed Jwill. But this end of the season doesnt mean anything is mularkey.


I don't see how the system was changed back to the triangle. Even the triangle apologists on this board will tell you it was only being run 15% of the time to start this season. If anything the Bulls simplified the offense to try and get Curry move involved. It was the plodding pick and roll, the same pick and roll the Bulls wore out to end last season.

C'mon now. Jay crashes his bike, Eddy shows up out of shape, Jalen misses the entire preseason, we don't get Voshon Lenard and all of this is Paxson's fault? As if we had some great team last year. IMO we had the 3rd or 4th worst team in the NBA last season and guess what? We're still there.

I really don't see why people are singling out Pax here. The 3 C's and Hinrich are still on the team. They have a coach who rewards them for sustained effort. They have been put in a position to succeed since Pax became GM.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You don't see why Pax is getting grief?

Did you see my last post?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> You don't see why Pax is getting grief?
> 
> Did you see my last post?


Actually I did MikeDC.  I really don't see how Paxson 'created this monster' or had 'unrealistic expectations'. Since when is competing for an 8th seed in the Eastern Conference setting the bar too high? There are countless posters here who've watched each and every Bulls game the past 5 seasons, and ya know what? 90% of them predicted 40 wins or a playoff birth.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see how the system was changed back to the triangle. Even the triangle apologists on this board will tell you it was only being run 15% of the time to start this season. If anything the Bulls simplified the offense to try and get Curry move involved. It was the plodding pick and roll, the same pick and roll the Bulls wore out to end last season.
> ...


Dave, we disagree. But your a great poster. So the response is respected. But the Bulls went from 0 triangle to end last year to alot of triangle this year. BC and Pax decided to go back to it, not the players. That must mean that the bad start is 50-50 shared by pax and bc. 

As for Vershon Lenard, he wanted to play with his HS friend Rose. The Bulls said no. They got Pippen and Gill. Those are his faults. We committed nearly 6 million dollars to guys who are washed up. Right now, my counter is name 1 good thing outside of drafting Kirk that we know was a good move. Skiles is still a question mark. No way around that. The second round picks are both 4s. The trade is a question mark, it just seemed to be that Pax had to get rid of Rose at whatever costs. he landed us 2 more 4s. Brunson for Mason could emerge as a monumental disaster. he admitted that he didnt scout Europe at all last year. he said he would trust BJ and Myers, then didnt. Should i continue? But pax is a rookie GM. Maybe he gets better. he will certainly get that chance. But when you look at what a guy like West did from day one compared to what Pax has done, its pretty laughable. 

I know what I am saying isnt popular. pax is a hero to alot of us. I have an autographed painting of his buzzer beating 3 pter to ice the third title. I love the guy too. But i am judging him purely as a GM. And so far, he gets an D. And that includes a great pick of Kirk Hinrich


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Ok I see now if we had gotten Voshon Lenard instead of Pip and Gill then we would have had an outstanding year and Rose and Marshall would still be here. Yeah right. Arguing over marginal vets is not the answer. We sink or swim with Tyson,Eddy, and JC. I say the swimming is not working and we need go in another direction. Adding someone like Hedo or Barry or whomever to what we have now will not solve our problems just make us marginally better, we need to be a LOT better.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Ok I see now if we had gotten Voshon Lenard instead of Pip and Gill then we would have had an outstanding year and Rose and Marshall would still be here. Yeah right. Arguing over marginal vets is not the answer. We sink or swim with Tyson,Eddy, and JC. I say the swimming is not working and we need go in another direction. Adding someone like Hedo or Barry or whomever to what we have now will not solve our problems just make us marginally better, we need to be a LOT better.


Veshon Lenard is anything but marginable? look at his season mate. The guy is having a great year. And atleast he is playing. Pippen isnt. how dare we give 4.5 million dollars, GUARANTEED and UNINSURED to a guy we only expect to play 20 minutes a night for 50 games year? Strike one for Pax


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually I did MikeDC.  I really don't see how Paxson 'created this monster' or had 'unrealistic expectations'. Since when is competing for an 8th seed in the Eastern Conference setting the bar too high? There are countless posters here who've watched each and every Bulls game the past 5 seasons, and ya know what? 90% of them predicted 40 wins or a playoff birth.


Well, it was pretty clearly setting the bar too high for this team 

Yeah, there are lots of knowledgeable Bulls fans out there, of course, but as knowledgeable as we are, we probably don't know a tenth of what a guy on the inside knows (lol, or more properly, should know). To paraphrase Socrates, I might be the smartest poster here because I know that I know hardly anything :laugh: ).

But yeah, anyway, I maintain that Pax was in a position to know a lot more than us, and Pax pretty clearly didn't. I don't think he's been a monumental failure, but to me to me saying he's had the same expectations as 90% of the knowledgeable fans here is saying that he's pretty replaceable


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, it was pretty clearly setting the bar too high for this team
> ...


This last paragraph is so true. What kills me as well is that not only arent we good, but with our young kids coming up for contracts, we are about to either totally rebuild or risk money on some kids who might not be worth it. All the while, teams like San Antonio and Detroit rebuild, win games and have great cap situations.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Maybe Pax knew these expectations and slyly marketed "No Excuses" on the players to deflect any blame. 

:whoknows:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Dave, we disagree. But your a great poster. So the response is respected. But the Bulls went from 0 triangle to end last year to alot of triangle this year. BC and Pax decided to go back to it, not the players. That must mean that the bad start is 50-50 shared by pax and bc.
> 
> As for Vershon Lenard, he wanted to play with his HS friend Rose. The Bulls said no. They got Pippen and Gill. Those are his faults. We committed nearly 6 million dollars to guys who are washed up. Right now, my counter is name 1 good thing outside of drafting Kirk that we know was a good move. Skiles is still a question mark. No way around that. The second round picks are both 4s. The trade is a question mark, it just seemed to be that Pax had to get rid of Rose at whatever costs. he landed us 2 more 4s. Brunson for Mason could emerge as a monumental disaster. he admitted that he didnt scout Europe at all last year. he said he would trust BJ and Myers, then didnt. Should i continue? But pax is a rookie GM. Maybe he gets better. he will certainly get that chance. But when you look at what a guy like West did from day one compared to what Pax has done, its pretty laughable.
> ...


Rlucas, the respect goes both ways my friend  I am consistently glued to reading your posts, whether I am in agreement or not.

I guess I'm willing to give Pax more than 9 months on the job before I roast him. I know there's been a lot of ballyhoo on the boards lately about having to tolerate an injured Pip, funky Gill, losing Trent, Freddie H, Mason Jr. or Baxter. I understnad the frustration. But these players, God bless 'em won't be leading the Bulls anywhere anytime soon. Role players are usually the last component to be added to championship teams, not the first.

So looking at the larger picture the 3 C's are still with the team, and Pax added a potentially great complimentary player in Hinrich. Hinrich has probably been our most consistent player this season, but he isn't our most talented. Curry has all the God given talent in the world, even his doubters will testify to that. Chandler when healthy was an energetic double double guy. And Crawford has shown the ability to score in bunches and involve his teammates.

IMO the BUlls have <i>still</i> put these kids in a position to succeed. Skiles is a consummate teacher and Crawford has been on record saying 'its scary how much he knows about the game'. AD/JYD may not be the athletic freaks that Eddy/Tyson are, but they are always giving 100% despite some limitations in their games. Gill is just annoying but there is a shred of truth to some of his verbiage. We know the 3 C's respect Pip, and Pip has been coaching these kids (especially Kirk and Jamal) all season long.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Whatever rlucas Lenard is a fine player but not a difference maker sorry. This team would have stunk too.


Crawford,Hinrich,Mason, Williams
Lenard,Gill,Johnson
Rose,Marshall,Robinson
Chandler,Fizer,Baxter
Curry,Blount


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

No matter what I think, or anyone thinks, pax is here for 10 years. Minimum. The only way he leaves is if he quits. JR doesnt care enough about the team to turn over a popular GM, no matter how inept he might be. JR is pure baseball. Thats why it was important, for the fans, to get this GM done right the first time around. And our beloved owner only interviewed one guy for the job. based on what we have seen so far, can anyone truly say that they see greatness?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Whatever rlucas Lenard is a fine player but not a difference maker sorry. This team would have stunk too.
> 
> 
> ...


Lenard, imho, is making a difference in Denver. Carmello is going to get all the pub. But Lenard is quietly doing all the things necessary to win games.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas, the respect goes both ways my friend  I am consistently glued to reading your posts, whether I am in agreement or not.
> ...


i have total respect for this post. I agree with lots in it. and dissagree with some stuff. I agree that this is still Chandler and Currys team. we only go as far as they go. As for Skiles, I didnt like him too much til I literally had a chance to watch him coach in that Knicks game. he did alot of good stuff there. But I am not sold that he is the right guy still. I totally agree that Davis and JYD are hustle guys who give it their all. They should be commended for it. But they are just excess parts still. We just dont need another 4. let alone 2. 

Dave, here is a 5 for you. Great debate


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That's my complaint.
> ...


Nice argument dude.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Lenard is a very solid player I admit that. Just saying he would not have made that team we had earlier in the year any better. That team was flawed. I do admit though if we lose JC this summer or in a trade for SF then signing Lenard as starting SG might not be a bad idea. But with JC,Rose, and Kirk, Lenard was not the right choice.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Lenard is a very solid player I admit that. Just saying he would not have made that team we had earlier in the year any better. That team was flawed. I do admit though if we lose JC this summer or in a trade for SF then signing Lenard as starting SG might not be a bad idea. But with JC,Rose, and Kirk, Lenard was not the right choice.


i just think this team has lacked a real shooter like Lenard in a long time. I am of the school that you cant enough shooters. JC and Rose are streaky. and Kirk has so far been streaky as well. Lenard is a top 10 shooter. And I think he is making Carmello, Nene and Camby look pretty good cause its hard to double down off Lenard to play any of those guys in the post


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i just think this team has lacked a real shooter like Lenard in a long time. I am of the school that you cant enough shooters. JC and Rose are streaky. and Kirk has so far been streaky as well. Lenard is a top 10 shooter. And I think he is making Carmello, Nene and Camby look pretty good cause its hard to double down off Lenard to play any of those guys in the post


Thats true. And sometimes having a consistent shooter, a guy like Wesley Person for instance, will make your less consistent shooters raise their game and become more consistent. I'm not sure WHY that is but it seems to be true in some cases.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats true. And sometimes having a consistent shooter, a guy like Wesley Person for instance, will make your less consistent shooters raise their game and become more consistent. I'm not sure WHY that is but it seems to be true in some cases.


People will disagree with me until the cows come home, but I think one guy that could help us out big time is Wally. I think we'd win 8 more games a year with him on our team.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> People will disagree with me until the cows come home, but I think one guy that could help us out big time is Wally. I think we'd win 8 more games a year with him on our team.


While the Wally rumors were the most annoying thing ever, i agree here. a solid shooter who can shoot 48-50% all from the outside would open things up for everyone on this team


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> People will disagree with me until the cows come home, but I think one guy that could help us out big time is Wally. I think we'd win 8 more games a year with him on our team.


I agree with you. I loved Wally in college. I thought he had such great heart and hustle, not to mention that solid jumper. He would look real good next to JC in the backcourt.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you. I loved Wally in college. I thought he had such great heart and hustle, not to mention that solid jumper. He would look real good next to JC in the backcourt.


Actually, I see him as being the missing link at the 3 next to Jamal and Kirk. He'll score consistently and open up the middle. 

He's BYC this year, so we couldn't do it unless another team was involved. I'm sure it's not going to happen this year, probably ever.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I see him as being the missing link at the 3 next to Jamal and Kirk. He'll score consistently and open up the middle.
> ...


Yeah, that would work fine too. He probably is better at the 3 anyway.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I loved Wallys game as well. Problem is we might have another Grant Hill situation with this guy and his injury though.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Last time Jamal laughed was when some media brought up the idea that Kirk was a better PG than he was. Hmm......


I'd laugh too...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I laugh that some of you still can not accept that Kirk is the man at PG for Chicago.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I laugh that some of you still can not accept that Kirk is the man at PG for Chicago.


i think Kirk is clearly one of OUR GUARDS going forward. that cant be argued. But inspite of his assts, I really still dont see a pure pg to be honest. If the Bulls could get another Kirk clone to play with him then we would be set back there. JC might be that guy. But he seems to be playing like a man who doesnt know where his future is.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you. I loved Wally in college. I thought he had such great heart and hustle, not to mention that solid jumper. He would look real good next to KH in the backcourt.


Spelling correction above.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Why does it kill everyone to say that Kirk is a true PG? Its crazy, can he play SG, sure at times, but the kid is a PG plan and simple.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I laugh that some of you still can not accept that Kirk is the man at PG for Chicago.


Seven assists a game in the last 13 games. And getting stronger.

Why would this man go to A. The Bench or B. The Other Guard Spot so WindBurned can play PG?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Its interesting how much Kirk's stats have improved since a shaky first few games of the year. FYI, season stats as of 1/15/04:

Kirk Hinrich
10.5ppg / 2.9rpg / 5.7ast / 1.12stl / 2.76TO / 40.4%FGp / 36.2%3pt / 33.4min per

Jamal Crawford
16.8ppg / 3.3rpg / 5.6ast / 1.64stl / 2.42TO / 39.6%FGp / 31.0%3pt / 35.3min per


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Its interesting how much Kirk's stats have improved since a shaky first few games of the year. FYI, season stats as of 1/15/04:
> 
> Kirk Hinrich
> ...



can you grab the last month? It would be interesting to see what Kirk has done over that time period. It has to be very good.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> can you grab the last month? It would be interesting to see what Kirk has done over that time period. It has to be very good.


I cheated  Because time is precious I used the last month averages function in Yahoo! Fantasy league sports. But here's what I found. Last month, or roughly 16 games Kirk has averaged:

13.1ppg / 3.9reb / 6.9ast / 1.3stl / 2.7TO / 40.3%FGp on 39.8 minutes per game

Over that time span (one month's time), he is 7th overall in the NBA in assists per game. 14th overall in minutes per game (this is quite scary folks). 12th overall in the NBA in 3 pointers made per game at 2.0 per.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jamal_crawford/game_by_game_stats.html

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kirk_hinrich/game_by_game_stats.html


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I cheated  Because time is precious I used the last month averages function in Yahoo! Fantasy league sports. But here's what I found. Last month, or roughly 16 games Kirk has averaged:
> ...


Similarly Jamal was not to shabby with:

16.9ppg / 3.6reb / 5.9ast / 1.9stl / 2.1TO / 36.5%FGp on 38.4 minutes per game


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I cheated  Because time is precious I used the last month averages function in Yahoo! Fantasy league sports. But here's what I found. Last month, or roughly 16 games Kirk has averaged:
> ...


That is tremendous, with the exception of the FG%. That has to be the part of his game that he works on the most


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> That is tremendous, with the exception of the FG%. That has to be the part of his game that he works on the most


It is awesome. But all those minutes for Kirk is a bit scary.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

So who, if they had known during the summer that WindBurn Crawford would put up those numbers, would have been disappointed?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> It is awesome. But all those minutes for Kirk is a bit scary.


Personally, i would have thought he hit the wall by now. But he keeps getting better, game by game. That is a hugely encouraging side. When he gets that FG% up to around 45%, we can start talking about a top flight PG. And i have no doubt he can get to that level. he is a good shooter. But he is adjusting from college 2 guard to Pro 1


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

For all of December and so far in January we have 22 games:


Hinrich:

12.41 PPG
6.64 APG


Crawford:
18.32 PPG
5.82 APG


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Now if you look at Crawfords stats leading up to Skiles taking over .


15.3ppg /1.9 rpg / 5.3 apg /1.0 spg / 43%fg / 30 mpg 


They are both quite good and seem to play off each other quite well.This summer someone is gonna say jamal come play pg for us I guess it all depends on how much Crawford really likes playing off the ball.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> For all of December and so far in January we have 22 games:
> 
> 
> ...


KH's numbers look to be better than WindBurneds at for every year WindBurn was a fulltime nba point guard. IOW, all of them, but this one.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Windburn?
Aren't nicknames supposed to be catchy? Not only is that not catchy(awkward to say), I don't know what it means with reference to Crawford?

Lots of numbers being thrown out here. Not really sure if it's even worth it to list Jamal's ppg average, because it's not an indication of what he can give you on any given night. He's as likely to give you 7 points as he is 42.

His assist numbers have been very solid the last month. Basically staying locked in at 6, which is very good playing off the ball as much as he does.

I agree with TruthHurts. Jamal's numbers are good enough that someone is going to offer him a starting PG spot somewhere and it might just come down to his preference to play PG as opposed to SG with the Bulls.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Not really sure if it's even worth it to list Jamal's ppg average, because *it's not an indication of what he can give you on any given night.*


:laugh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

**


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Jamal's numbers are good enough that someone is going to offer him a starting PG spot somewhere and it might just come down to his preference to play PG as opposed to SG with the Bulls.


I agree and I think that team will be the Clippers.


Crawford
Richardson
Maggette
Brand
Kaman


That is unless they go PG with their draft pick. If they go SF we may be able to get either QRich or Maggette. I would prefer Maggette but QRich is a RFA and they might let him walk if they can get JC.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> *Curry and Crawford have had three and four years respectively to show Chicago fans and everyone associated with the Bulls organization what kind of moxie they're made of. Performance inconsistencies aside (because of youth, inexperience, etc) both players have displayed on-court demeanors more akin to a butterfly than a bull. What makes anyone think that their personalities and their basic natures will ever change?
> 
> These are not Paxson's kinds of players. Color them gone at the first opportunity.*


Interesting...


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

A look at the Clippers financial situation for signing Crawford.

The Clippers have $32,761,020 in committed salaries next year. Richardson's cap hold is 5.4 which brings them up to $38,178,225. Then you got to add in a draft pick caphold. They're currently on pace for the 10th pick. That brings their total up to $39,693,825. 

Say the cap goes up 2 million to 45.84 million. 

The Clips could offer Jamal a maximum deal of 6 years for 47 million dollars. I think 45 would be to the point where Paxson has to think long and hard about and knowing him, probably not match. 

But then again, who's to say Donald Sterling will pay up a 4th big contract in two years?

Stay tuned.


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

I got a feelin Jamal may end up in Cleveland. Playin point next to LeBron. Just a gut instinct.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Crawscrew</b>!
> I got a feelin Jamal may end up in Cleveland. Playin point next to LeBron. Just a gut instinct.


They are real good friends so it wouldn't be too surprising. Still, Pax would have to refuse to match whatever offer Cleveland makes which means it would have to be a pretty darn good offer.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Jim robbing John, mwhaha. I'd love for Crawford and Lebron go on to win NBA Championship after NBA Championship just so some braniac at NBC or CBS thinks up a new reality series: 


"Holidays with the Paxsons"


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

On the next episode of Holidays with the Paxsons...

Scene: John Paxson's office on phone

John: Tell your client 6 years 40 million or we'll trade him to Atlanta!

Scene: Gordon Gund's office

Gordon: Attendance is up 30% and our team is competing for the 8th spot.
Jim: No sir, we're competing for the *7th* seed.
Gordon: Excellent... excellent.

Scene: John Paxson in car on cell phone

John: High school players are long term projects and we need to win now.... What?... Oh come on, my brother's always gotten all the damn luck since we stopped playing.

Scene: Barren Cold War-esque Hospital

Nurse: The patient isn't here!
Doctor: Call the guards immediately!!!
*Guard runs down the hall.*
Doctor: Find this Mario Austin... kill him if necessary.

Scene: Jim Paxson's Office

Person on speaker phone: Yeah, the injury seems pretty severe, Lebron is going to be out for 12 weeks.
Jim: Dammit! Boozer is going to win another season in our NBA Live Dynasty... unless I convince Kapono to trade me Kobe by threatening to cut him otherwise...

Scene: Berto Center, Skiles is conducting practice

Skiles: Bigs down here with me, guards with Pete... whoa, where are you going Eddie?
E-Rob: Best Buy has got a sale on the new TiVos...

Scene: Jerry Reisendorf's Office

Jerry: You're fired.
*long pause*
Jerry: I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Hey, wanna go fishing next weekend with me and Crumbs?


----------



## evalam23 (Feb 2, 2004)

Paxson is losing his cool because he does not like to see this.

http://www.nba.com/games/20040221/MEMCHI/recap.html


----------

