# Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith / J.R. Smith traded to Detroit?



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> J.R. Smith and George Karl are already not seeing eye to eye and this could be a long season for the long-range bomber.
> 
> Karl vows to be less patient with Smith this season. "I just think J.R. had too many bad plays (Tuesday) for a team that wants to be a championship team," Karl said. "Last year, we tolerated it. This year, it probably won't be tolerated."





> J.R. Smith returned to action for the Nuggets Sunday after being benched by coach George Karl on Friday.
> 
> Smith has already apologized to teammates for his behavior and has caught the wrath of Karl a couple times this month.
> 
> "I’m not trying to be a team cancer," he said in his apology. Smith said there was "a lot of speculation and stuff going around about me being an individual player. I just want to let my teammates know I’m here to win," he said.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nba/article/0,2777,DRMN_23922_5722970,00.html


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

this is going to seem annoying and nitpicky, but the thread title reflects how a lot of people even think of JR Smith as an ex-bull

he was never going to be a bull, so there's no sense in wondering 'what if' on him


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Hands up who would rather have the Griffin/Curry/Gray trio that we wound up with?

*raises hand*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Everyone knows the guy needs some tough love from the coaching staff. Looks like that's Karl's approach here. Smith apologized. Looks like he may be learning the ropes as well.

I know the future after a Kobe trade would seem a lot more palatable with Smith or Chandler on the roster.

Then again, if people are happy with "we'll have no other players if we do a Kobe trade" or think this gang is ready to roll, then who cares! Dump him! We’re already set!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



> Everyone knows the guy needs some tough love from the coaching staff. Looks like that's Karl's approach here. Smith apologized. Looks like he may be learning the ropes as well.


That's a ridiculous piece of spin given that George Karl benched him during the playoffs for having not learnt a damn thing. But, you know, whatever.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

One thing about George Karl as a coach - he makes a lousy GM. Got the Bucks to trade Ray Allen, bring in Anthony Mason......


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Sham said:


> That's a ridiculous piece of spin given that George Karl benched him during the playoffs for having not learnt a damn thing. But, you know, whatever.


Ah, but that's in the past.

Karl and Smith are moving forward.

Here's to the future! :cheers:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Not to mention Smith languishing on the bench under Byron Scott. When he arrived at Denver he was supposedly going to turn it around. 

Good to see he's learned his lesson!


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

so now two coaches have lamented what a knucklehed this chump (read: ungrateful SOB that takes his god-given ability and blessings for granted) is, but the bulls would be "more palatable" with he and chandler post kobe. (WTF? 3 knuckleheads?)

question; name the last championship contender with multiple knucklehead/cancer/malcontents on their roster?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Everyone knows the guy needs some tough love from the coaching staff. Looks like that's Karl's approach here. Smith apologized. Looks like he may be learning the ropes as well.


Wow. Stretching things as far as you can to make fun of a somewhat talented basketball player who has never ever straightened himself out.

Michael Vick apologized, too. Is he "learning the ropes?"


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Ah, but that's in the past.



What, being benched?

May I refer you to the opening post here?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Sham said:


> What, being benched?


Uh, no. Playoffs.

Its nice to see Karl rolling with the punches here. He's getting the most out of the asset he has to work with it seems. Nice work.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



> I just think J.R. had too many bad plays (Tuesday) for a team that wants to be a championship team," Karl said. "Last year, we tolerated it. This year, *it probably won't be tolerated*."


maybe it's me, but the above statement didn't sound like karl will be "working with an asset" whatsoever.

nice try at a "spin" move though; try posting up next time......


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> He's getting the most out of the asset he as to work with it seems. Nice work.



If the best he can get out of J.R. Smith is to bench him, I fail to see why we should lament losing this "asset". But hey ho, you were never really into the logical argument thing anyway.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Then again, if people are happy with "we'll have no other players if we do a Kobe trade" or think this gang is ready to roll, then who cares! Dump him! We’re already set!


That's exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Sham said:


> If the best he can get out of J.R. Smith is to bench him, I fail to see why we should lament losing this "asset".


Hm, interesting. So you think that JR Smith is going to be benched for most of the year and not contribute much? That Karl will just banish him rather than work with him?

Perhaps. We'll see how it plays out. Based on that story it looks like Smith is willing to conform.

Last season he played in 60+ games @ 24 minutes a night with a 15.75 PER.



> But hey ho, you were never really into the logical argument thing anyway.


Zing! Let's try to keep the personal shots to a minimum, eh?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Hm, interesting. So you think that JR Smith is going to be benched for most of the year and not contribute much? That Karl will just banish him rather than work with him?


They're trying to trade him...that's how I found the original article. It was here: http://dimemag.com/2007/10/15/trading-spaces/




kukoc4ever said:


> Zing! Let's try to keep the personal shots to a minimum, eh?


The Bull stops trying to gore folks when folks stop waving the red cape around.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> The Bull stops trying to gore folks when folks stop waving the red cape around.


Who created this thread?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> They're trying to trade him...that's how I found the original article. It was here: http://dimemag.com/2007/10/15/trading-spaces/


Makes sense... there's clearly a glut of scorers on that team after the AI deal.

Why don't they just dump him for nothing?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Nothing here...move on...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Today:



> I can't imagine it's just about Smith's play in the opener, so I'm pretty sure that means there must have been some kind of incident in practice. A fight? An argument?
> --
> The Nugg Doctor claims to have a source (ht: Blog-a-Bull) saying it was a "difference of opinion" with Karl, which is surprising since even Smith must realize that nothing good can come from that situation. Smith clearly fashions himself as a big-time scoring threat, but in a lineup that already features Camelo Anthony and Allen Iverson, it may be time for the Nuggets to start shopping Smith, assuming they haven't already started.


http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/10/16/is-trouble-brewing-for-j-r-smith-in-denver/


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

maybe this time around he'll get moved for a third round pick.....:biggrin:


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



BULLHITTER said:


> so now two coaches have lamented what a knucklehed this chump (read: ungrateful SOB that takes his god-given ability and blessings for granted) is, but the bulls would be "more palatable" with he and chandler post kobe. (WTF? 3 knuckleheads?)
> 
> question; name the last championship contender with multiple knucklehead/cancer/malcontents on their roster?


Was Chandler a knucklehead?

And in Bryant's apparent knuckleheadness.....he seems to really be able to help all of his teams...

And it seems like Rodman, Wallace, Steve Jackson, A. Walker, have done alright in the past.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



> Was Chandler a knucklehead?


the short answer imo, is yes.



> And in Bryant's apparent knuckleheadness.....he seems to really be able to help all of his teams...


outside of the lakers, would you be referring to the italian team that he has part ownership of?



> And it seems like Rodman, Wallace, Steve Jackson, A. Walker, have done alright in the past.


are you comparing JR to these guys? knuckleheads usually have multiple addresses (regardless of their successes) during the course of their careers; should that have been a reason to keep JR?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

JR Smith had value in Denver because they were the worst outside shooting team in the NBA when they acquired him.Their system is perfect for a guy who doesn't play any defense and literally has no understanding of shot selection.They needed him and he was young enough that they could be patient with him.

Chicago doesn't play all out run and gun offense...They have a defensive minded coach who isn't renowned for his patience with players.They also have a good rotation of guards who are all better players than Smith without his baggage.It's ridiculous to act as though he ever had any value to the Bulls.He would have just been some disgruntled jerk sitting on the end of the bench.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Diable said:


> They also have a good rotation of guards who are all better players than Smith without his baggage.It's ridiculous to act as though he ever had any value to the Bulls.He would have just been some disgruntled jerk sitting on the end of the bench.



>>You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.<<

Drat! 

Good post.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



BULLHITTER said:


> the short answer imo, is yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) doesn't seem like there's alot of proof that he was a knucklehead during his tenure with the bulls....maybe its just your personal bias aganist him or maybe you just have a low standard what being a knuckleheads are

2) i'm just pointing out that if u think bryant is a knuclehead, he still has helped his teams a ton

3) there are tons of knucleheads that have won. just pointing that out


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> He's getting the most out of the asset he has to work with it seems. Nice work.



I know one of your big problems with the Paxiles is the unwillingness to work with the NBA problem-child. But please let me ask you... if you can get the job done with model guys, why not do it that way? It's the easier route, in the sense that you want management (if it's good) to control as many factors about the team as possible, mold your talent, and show it on court. Having something explosive and unpredictable on your roster isn't impossible to deal with, but if you can eliminate that, you can get right to work. This is the route that led the current NBA dynasty to their various banners, which as you say, are good things to have.

The 90s Bulls made the most of Dennis Rodman and created one of the more calm situations for him in his career. I argue that his was made possible NOT because Phil and Jerry worked with him, but because the already existing situation on the roster was one that would not tolerate a troublemaker.

One might talk about 'Sheed, but again: entered a veteran situation, and he's more of an on-court issues guy anyway.

I don't see the current Bulls roster as having that 90s Bulls leadership, in any way, shape or form. The in-uniform leadership on the current Bulls is too quiet: Hinrich, Wallace, Deng. Personality wise, they're not going to reprimand you, as a teammate, on anything. Hell, even Kendall Gill's "be a pro," aimed at E-Rob...seems out of place coming from anyone's mouth on this roster.


In short, having JR Smith on this roster--even as future trade bait--would influence the team negatively. Pax has a philosophy where guys-with-baggage dont make the roster, and Skiles is a coach that matches that philosophy, in that he won't(cant) coddle. Disagree with it if you will, but I'd only see your side of it if we were at the point of having a Jordan (in leadership terms) already on the team.

Coaches won't bring about the scenario you want (aka the reformed trouble guy). That will come about from peer pressure of teammates... the late 90s Bulls roster made insubordinacy almost a non-option. You can always rebel against a coach and sit on the bench happily; having teammates that VIVIDLY disapprove makes your life unlivable.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> I know one of your big problems with the Paxiles is the unwillingness to work with the NBA problem-child. But please let me ask you... if you can get the job done with model guys, why not do it that way? It's the easier route, in the sense that you want management (if it's good) to control as many factors about the team as possible, and get right to work. Having something explosive and unpredictable on your roster isn't impossible to deal with, but if you can eliminate that, you can get right to work. This is the route that led the current NBA dynasty to their various banners, which as you say, are good things to have.
> 
> The 90s Bulls made the most of Dennis Rodman and created one of the more calm situations for him in his career. I argue that his was made possible NOT because Phil and Jerry worked with him, but because the already existing situation on the roster was one that would not tolerate a troublemaker.
> 
> ...


Nice post... I'd disagree with parts of it though. First, Hinrich's being talked up as being a much more vocal leader these days, and my sense, in watching the team over the past few year is that I wouldn't want to get on Antonio Davis', or really even Chris Duhon's bad side. I don't know that Duhon's got the stature to say those sorts of things to anyone the way a guy like Pippen would, but just pointing out that I've seen it and I do think there's some guys there who could probably exert some peer pressure. Wallace could, but doesn't seem inclined to, which is something I'm not all that happy with but another story.

I also don't think it's equivalent to say that the team would be influenced negatively even if they wouldn't positively influence a player. I think most of our players are pretty tough-minded, and I don't see it as very likely any of them start lolley-gagging around just because <insert your unfavorite player here> doesn't practice all that hard. If they did, then they wouldn't be all that tough-minded in the first place.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



MikeDC said:


> I also don't think it's equivalent to say that the team would be influenced negatively even if they wouldn't positively influence a player. I think most of our players are pretty tough-minded, and I don't see it as very likely any of them start lolley-gagging around just because <insert your unfavorite player here> doesn't practice all that hard. If they did, then they wouldn't be all that tough-minded in the first place.


I agree that present-day Luol Deng is not going to start losing focus and goofing off, simply because JR Smith is on the roster. But my saying "negatively influence" means that JR Smith would do as he pleases, and CONTINUE to do so, unabated. That, to me, is enough of a failure on a 12 man roster. Even if the other semi-vets here don't follow suit, it's going to be an annoyance that weighs on them mentally to have an off-court nagging attitude problem on the roster.

Championship teams tend not to have that type of constant locker room problem on the roster. 



And I can't agree that Chris Duhon provides the type of leadership I'm talking about. I want the main minutes guys on my team to be vocally intimidating enough to will people AWAY from JR-Smith-itis. Maybe one day they get there, but it hasnt been seen yet. Until that happens, I want the simpler Spurs model: everyone on the same page from the start. Simple is good.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> I know one of your big problems with the Paxiles is the unwillingness to work with the NBA problem-child.



Except it's not true. From all accounts, Tyrus Thomas is not all peaches and creme the way that Luol is, yet theres space for him on the roster. 

And if you put the three, 4, 5 that Paxson has supposedly 'jettisoned' on one roster, where would they place in todays NBA?

Curry, Chandler, Crawford, Tim Thomas, Jalen Rose as starters and JR Smith off the bench.

I can't think of a GM in the league that would look at that roster longingly. It would be the Krause era again...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



> Except it's not true. From all accounts, Tyrus Thomas is not all peaches and creme the way that Luol is, yet theres space for him on the roster.


maybe i'm misunderstanding this, but where has thomas ever been perceived as not being "jibby" (i'm cringing as i type that frickin' word) enough? have his teammates mentioned anything? coaches? managment? deng nabbit's post was spot on, imo.

thomas is a far, far cry from anything like JR; JR was lambasted by another coach before he ever was moved to the bulls. further, NO tried to dump him but could find no suck, er, trading partners for him.
putting thomas in that category is way off base at this point.

maybe i misunderstood. if so, never mind......:clap2:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> Except it's not true. From all accounts, Tyrus Thomas is not all peaches and creme the way that Luol is, yet theres space for him on the roster.



Tyrus has no track record.

My view: Tyrus is a sulky countryboy who takes direction well. Really well, if you ask me. I've never seen anything from him that came close to derailing what the team is doing.


I hear what you're saying about the quality of those guys. Sometimes I wonder... maybe Tim Thomas was about to right his ship when he got on our roster. But he had a track record, and Pax doesnt want to deal with it. Now, Kobe has a track record. But I think we would evaluate his addition to this group in a different way than the addition of a JR Smith, in that he'd completely revamp the balance of leadership on this team.


----------



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

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

JR Smith is one heck of an athlete but he isn't a smart basketball player. 
JR has always had the physical tools but never the mental make up. 

I guess if you want flash, JR is your guy. If you want execution and good solid play, stay far away from Smith. 

Since I live in Colorado, I get to watch a number of Nugget games and watching Smith wander the court, foul at inopportune times and huck up bad shots is painful. I can understand why Karl is tired of Smith, what I don't understand is how Karl put up with him as long as he did. Then again, Denver doesn't have a very deep squad, so maybe George had no better options.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> Tyrus has no track record.
> 
> My view: Tyrus is a sulky countryboy who takes direction well.


My point is that we can't pretend that one type of personality is all that Paxson is interested in.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> My point is that we can't pretend that one type of personality is all that Paxson is interested in.


I agree with this. Noah is a good example: he's going to give you fits at some point.... probably never at the Rasheed level. But Noah and 'Sheed appear to be team-first.... JR Smith's incidents have reflected "team last." That's why I can't figure why K4E wants to keep being a fixer, when, lo and behold, we have a pretty good thing going here...in hiring people who actually want to do what this job of jobs entails.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> I agree with this. Noah is a good example: he's going to give you fits at some point....


Here:



> John Paxson, the Bulls' general manager, first saw Noah in 2005 and was impressed by his ability to defend, rebound and run the floor in transition.
> 
> Still, Paxson had a big question for Donovan before the draft this past June.
> 
> ...


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2007/10/14/a1b_noah_1014.html


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> I know one of your big problems with the Paxiles is the unwillingness to work with the NBA problem-child. But please let me ask you... if you can get the job done with model guys, why not do it that way?
> In short, having JR Smith on this roster--even as future trade bait--would influence the team negatively. Pax has a philosophy where guys-with-baggage dont make the roster, and Skiles is a coach that matches that philosophy, in that he won't(cant) coddle.



Fair enough. I didn't shed many tears when JR Smith was dumped. Just made the Chandler dump even more of a waste.

We threw away the "head-case" Tyson Chandler as well. That was a bad move.

We don't need desperately JR Smith on this current team barring injury, but I still think consolidating our assets into a KG(too late) or a Kobe would be a good move, if the goal is to win now.

Yes, we won't be as deep. That's why I'd rather have a JR Smith or a Tyson Chandler waiting in the wings to play heavy minutes if needed.

At this point, its going to be damned near impossible to make the case for a Kobe trade. We will be somewhat thin after the deal... it won't be a sure thing @ a NBA title.

Now if we dumped Gordon, Nocioni and TT and still had Smith and Chandler on the roster... well.... now we're talking.

We can't trade for Gasol. We'll be too thin. We can't trade for Garnett. We'll be too thin. We can't trade for Kobe. We'll be too thin. We're dumping JR Smith and Tyson Chandler for nothing? Great move!

-----

I don't think a JR Smith would negatively affect this team in any way except the stink raised when Skiles refuses to deal with him. And yah, Smith isn’t worth it.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> We can't trade for Gasol. We'll be too thin. We can't trade for Garnett. We'll be too thin. We can't trade for Kobe. We'll be too thin. We're dumping JR Smith and Tyson Chandler for nothing? Great move!


if a Kobe deal is going to take Gordon AND Deng, then I don't want it - no matter if JR Smith and TC are here or not. I think most here would agree with that. TC won't play if Ben W is a big part of this, and I don't see Ben W going anywhere.




if a Kobe deal can (bare minimum) get me a starting lineup of:

Hinrich
Kobe
Wallace
Deng
Smith

with backups: Noah, DuDu, Grif, VK, Gray, Gardnr, Curry 



then i am for it. Bench gutted, but come playoff time, it's a squad. With regard to those backups, I'll work with them over JR because (1) his issues arent worth it, (2) Kobe's going to log big minutes anyway. Again, Chandler is superfluous in any scenario where Wallace is on the team, playing big minutes. youve agreed to as much; they cant play together unless we dig the 3 on 5.

So Smith and Chandler would not get minutes on this team after a Kobe trade. Gasol and KG? I think we couldve done those trades for less than what a Kobe trade does.





kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think a JR Smith would negatively affect this team in any way except the stink raised when Skiles refuses to deal with him. And yah, Smith isn’t worth it.


For the most part, in football, the coach doesnt have to "deal" with this. The system runs smoothly this way. If Lovie Smith has an anti-team guy, as rare as that is in the NFL, he doesnt have to deal with it for long. Why? There are 40 guys on the team and they will all beat the rogue's behind (T.O. in Philly vs. T.O. now is an example of that healing process)

Teammates get you in line. they "deal" with you.

Coaches are not coddlers! They are highly specialized in knowing their game, and insubordinacy gets in the way of them getting across everything they have to get across. Skiles does not have to deal with crap like JR's, and we are better off for it. We are better off because the management philosophy and the coach fit together in this regard.

Karl "deals" with it, and I feel he has paid the price over his career for doing just that.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Now I want to ask K4E a question. Why do you want problem guys on this team? A lot of people look at this team as a ECF contender. We did it with high character guys, and we did it without a Lebron type draft pick in a Lebrony type draft. 

Why is this a bad thing? Can't you agree, at least, that the other way is .... harder?



A follow up question: In the cases where problem guys brought in have led to team success... was it because a coach perfectly suited for dealing with problem guys came on the scene? I'd argue it's really rare to find Red Auerbach and Dr. Phil in the same man, so you have to get the best basketball coach you can, and work to make the team an environment that eschews anti-team behavior.


The big lie is that Phil Jackson was so well suited to dealing with Dennis. With Jordan around, Dennis was in check. With Dennis' ill-fated Lakers stint..... Michael wasn't there... he had the coddling Kurt Rambis before Jackson came in. what happened with that one again?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> Why do you want problem guys on this team?


link?

Also, define "problem guy."

Many said that Chandler was one. He's clearly not.



> A lot of people look at this team as a ECF contender. We did it with high character guys, and we did it without a Lebron type draft pick in a Lebrony type draft.
> 
> Why is this a bad thing? Can't you agree, at least, that the other way is .... harder?


"many" thought we were a "contender" last year. The Bulls have accomplished nothing of note. They have done nothing of note to this point. 

Harder / Easier? Iverson made it to the finals. Many consider him a problem guy. Rodman has rings. Kobe has rings. "Problem guys." The list goes on and on. There are good players and bad players. A good NBA coach can learn to deal with the bad ones. We're not a team of rookies anymore.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> if a Kobe deal is going to take Gordon AND Deng, then I don't want it - no matter if JR Smith and TC are here or not. I think most here would agree with that.


Almost all scenarios bandied about don't include both.






> Again, Chandler is superfluous in any scenario where Wallace is on the team, playing big minutes.


And Noah isn't?




Randy Moss is playing great on the best NFL team around right now. "Problem guy" in Oakland. I guess it depends on the organization. The Pats are proven winners.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Let me see if I get this right .

people are happy Pax passed on a 22 yr. old who starts for a team just as good as the bulls , for a couple rooks at the end of the roster because he makes mistakes.

let me phrase it this way do you think they the nuggets would trade Jameson curry and aaron gray for J.R. smith right now.

i bet you all know the answer to that.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> Let me see if I get this right .
> 
> people are happy Pax passed on a 22 yr. old who starts for a team just as good as the bulls , for a couple rooks at the end of the roster because he makes mistakes.
> 
> ...


Well, let me put it this way. I wouldn't trade JamesOn Curry for Smith. I wouldn't dream of trading a young, quality big man like Gray for Smith. Smith is a team cancer who would find himself in street clothes more often than not or in the NBADL if he was a Bull. Players who don't play defense or run plays properly don't play for the Bulls.

Karl is a lot nicer coach than Skiles. Skiles would punch this guys ticket.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> I agree that present-day Luol Deng is not going to start losing focus and goofing off, simply because JR Smith is on the roster. But my saying "negatively influence" means that JR Smith would do as he pleases, and CONTINUE to do so, unabated. That, to me, is enough of a failure on a 12 man roster. Even if the other semi-vets here don't follow suit, it's going to be an annoyance that weighs on them mentally to have an off-court nagging attitude problem on the roster.


I dunno... last year other guys carped on perceived favoritism to Wallace, and the year before that there was the whole tim thomas fiasco. I agree with you in principle, but in practice I just don't think any of those guys would pay much attention, let alone be negatively influenced. I think most basketball players are very bottom line guys (especially those on the Bulls). If they see a guy helping win games, they'll like him. If they see him ****ing off, they won't.



> Championship teams tend not to have that type of constant locker room problem on the roster.
> 
> And I can't agree that Chris Duhon provides the type of leadership I'm talking about. I want the main minutes guys on my team to be vocally intimidating enough to will people AWAY from JR-Smith-itis. Maybe one day they get there, but it hasnt been seen yet. Until that happens, I want the simpler Spurs model: everyone on the same page from the start. Simple is good.


The Spurs are about the only champion I can think of in recent memory that didn't have some sort of constant locker room problem. The Lakers (Kobe vs. Shaq), the Pistons (Rasheed Wallace), the Bulls second 3-peat with Rodman (and nearly constant MJ/PJ vs. Krause feuding). I dunno about the Heat... they didn't have any obvious clowns (though Payton and Walker have often been described that way) and they had Shaq to enforce things, but they also had their coach fired during the season and replaced with Riley.

Like I said, I agree with you in principle, but I think when I look around, I see some level of drama as the rule, not the exception. When you get together a team talented enough to win a championship, you're almost inevitably getting together a group of highly competitive, egotistical people who aren't all going to get along.


----------



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

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> Let me see if I get this right .
> 
> people are happy Pax passed on a 22 yr. old who starts for a team just as good as the bulls , for a couple rooks at the end of the roster because he makes mistakes.
> 
> ...


Is the anserw yes? The Nuggets have some cap room problems and teams do some strange things to avoid paying too much in tax (see PHX trading 1st rounders)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Pretty sure I would not trade Gray for JR Smith, by the way.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

then i have to ask how deep are the bulls that they wouldn't trade either of their 22 year old 3rd stringers(neither of which btw have played in a game that counts) for another team's 22 year old starter ?

it just seems ridiculous to me...the bulls are actually deep but c'mon now.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> Let me see if I get this right .
> 
> people are happy Pax passed on a 22 yr. old who starts for a team just as good as the bulls , for a couple rooks at the end of the roster because he makes mistakes.


Starts? He started 24 games last year. When he was traded to the Nuggets, they didn't have a single other shooting guard on their roster. Later in the season, after the Iverson trade, Smith's minutes decreased _drastically_. He averaged 16.8 minutes per game in March, 15 minutes per game in April, and 9.4 minutes per game in the playoffs.

Karl opted for a backcourt of Steve Blake and AI a majority of the time late in the season.

Hell, late in the season Linas Kleiza (a former college center) was getting more time than Smith, with some of that playing time coming at shooting guard.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



MikeDC said:


> Pretty sure I would not trade Gray for JR Smith, by the way.


FWIW, I'd trade Gray for Smith and Chandler in a heartbeat.

For all the depth we have as-is, we'd be that much stronger with those two. Chandler is clearly superior to Gray at this point (it's unclear Gray will play much at all, for that matter). 

We'd be talking about a front line of Wallace, Deng, Nocioni, Smith, Chandler, Noah, and Thomas. Depth! At least 5 of those guys are starting quality players on many teams.

At guard, we'd have two big guards in Thabo and Smith who bring what we need in situations. One defense, one offense. We would have a proven commodity in Smith in the role we're hoping the unproven Curry can fill, and Smith is tall which helps, too.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

all this hulabaloo about a guy soon to be ostracized from the league......he's a poor man's isiah (JR, LOL!!)rider (albeit less talented), and even he lasted longer than this chump smith.......maybe threads like these will die then.:worthy:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



The Truth said:


> Starts? He started 24 games last year. When he was traded to the Nuggets, they didn't have a single other shooting guard on their roster. Later in the season, after the Iverson trade, Smith's minutes decreased _drastically_. He averaged 16.8 minutes per game in March, 15 minutes per game in April, and 9.4 minutes per game in the playoffs.
> 
> Karl opted for a backcourt of Steve Blake and AI a majority of the time late in the season.
> 
> Hell, late in the season Linas Kleiza (a former college center) was getting more time than Smith, with some of that playing time coming at shooting guard.


Karl opted to move AI to the 2 , there hasn't been a bull in nearly 10 years who could start ahead of AI at the 2.

also in whatever minutes he avg. he avg. more points than all bulls not named kirk, gordon, nocioni or deng so pardon me if i am agast at the notion that the 13th and 14th guys on the bulls are by some considered more valuable than him.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> also in whatever minutes he avg. he avg. more points than all bulls not named kirk, gordon, nocioni or deng so pardon me if i am agast at the notion that the 13th and 14th guys on the bulls are by some considered more valuable than him.


Anyone can shoot the ball a lot. Smith shot at a rate of .441 last season -- his best season. That puts him behind Deng, Thomas, Griffin, Nocioni, Gordon, Wallace, Hinrich. Why would we want our 8th most efficient shooter taking most of our shots?

13th & 14th roster spots are not where you stash a clubhouse cancer. Those spots are where you put a developing back-up or a practice player. Smith would not accept the role as a 13th or 14th player. Why mention it like it's possible?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Wynn said:


> Smith shot at a rate of .441 last season -- his best season. That puts him behind Deng, Thomas, Griffin, Nocioni, Gordon, Wallace, Hinrich. Why would we want our 8th most efficient shooter taking most of our shots?


His eFG was a blistering 55.7.

Our highest guy last year was Nocioni at 53.6.

They guy can put the ball in the bucket efficiently, that's for sure.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

I think Wynns point stands out best: If you're going to tolerate a problem-child, he had better be worth it.

I'm not sure Smith would have played enough to make it worth it for us. He could have helped, he might have won a game or two for us...but ultimately the realized risks would outweigh by far any rewards he'd bring with him.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> Karl opted to move AI to the 2 , there hasn't been a bull in nearly 10 years who could start ahead of AI at the 2.


No kidding. My point was that the Nuggets had no other options at the 2 before they traded for Iverson. Before obtaining Iverson, who else would have played the 2?

But wait a minute, weren't you calling Smith a starter for a team as good as the Bulls?

The only reason Smith was a "starter" last season--for 24 games--was because the Nuggets had very few (no) other options at the position. 

Karl opted to play with a backcourt of Blake and Iverson over a backcourt of Iverson and Smith.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

i guess his "blistering" eFG wasn't that important. in choosing blake/iverson, i'd guess his "blisters" were on his buttcheeks.:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> but ultimately the realized risks would outweigh by far any rewards he'd bring with him.


This is the part I'd like to hear some elaboration on.

What, honestly, are the risks? Is the team going to implode over JR Smith?

Worst case, what happens? He publicly complains about playing time and demands a trade? PJ Brown, our team captain, did the same thing last year.

On the reward side, if you just don’t think there is a role for a pure scorer like Smith on the team, then fine, but I think people really overvalue the risk.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Bulls didn't want JR. The deal with the Nuggets was probably alrady lined up.

What the hell do Bulls need JR Smith for?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



BULLHITTER said:


> i guess his "blistering" eFG wasn't that important. in choosing blake/iverson, i'd guess his "blisters" were on his buttcheeks.:biggrin:


Yah, something tells me they were not going to go with the AI/Smith/Melo lineup at the 1,2,3. That would be nonsense.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> On the reward side, if you just don’t think there is a role for a pure scorer like Smith on the team, then fine, but I think people really overvalue the risk.


That may be true, but it seems that you undervalue the fact that he plays zero defense, doesn't particularly like to pass the ball, and probably wouldn't have seen any playing time last season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



The Truth said:


> That may be true, but it seems that you undervalue the fact that he plays zero defense, doesn't particularly like to pass the ball, and probably wouldn't have seen any playing time last season.


The playing time does not bother me. This was the same reasoning behind the justification of the Chandler dump. 

KG was in play. Gasol was supposedly in play. Kobe is supposedly in play. If we want to grab one of these guys, and one of the main causes of concern is thinness of the left over roster I’m not giving away guys like Smith or Chandler. Especially since there really isn’t much risk in keeping them around, IMO. And, perhaps PaxSiles could get through to a guy like Smith and then you have a really good player… not just a role player / instant offense type. 

If we’re just going to stick with what we have and not chase the consolidation trade anymore, then fine. It will be kind of a shame though if we get thumped by KG and the Celtics the next couple of years though.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> KG was in play. Gasol was supposedly in play. Kobe is supposedly in play. If we want to grab one of these guys, and one of the main causes of concern is thinness of the left over roster I’m not giving away guys like Smith or Chandler. Especially since there really isn’t much risk in keeping them around, IMO.


I don't really think these two should be mentioned together. Obviously Chandler is a more valuable asset in a consolidation trade because he has a much larger contract. Smith would only be on the books for a little more than $2 million a year. Now that is $2 million a year that they could have used in consolidation trade, but--to me at least--his value as a piece of a consolidation trade does not exceed the risk (or headache) of having the knucklehead on the team. I mean, ignoring the fact that he's been a problem child at New Orleans and Denver, do we really need to get into his off the court driving issues?



> And, perhaps PaxSiles could get through to a guy like Smith and then you have a really good player… not just a role player / instant offense type.


Unless he underwent a drastic turnaround, you would have a really good outside shooter, defensive liability, and poor decision maker who would rarely sniff any playing time.


----------



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

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Cap room and luxury taxes should come into the equation when talking about why we should have kept both Chandler and JR Smith. If the Bulls would of kept both Chandler and JR Smith, what happens when you have to trade contracts and 1st rounders to avoid paying the luxury tax? Phoenix has traded away how many 1st rounders to avoid paying the tax? Do you think Phoenix kicking themselves for trading away picks that turn into quality players(ala Deng)?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



The Truth said:


> Now that is $2 million a year that they could have used in consolidation trade, but--to me at least--his value as a piece of a consolidation trade does not exceed the risk (or headache) of having the knucklehead on the team.


I was thinking of Smith on the roster post-consolidation trade. Yah, he wouldn't be a key guy in a consolidationt trade.

There is a difference between risk and headache. I still have not heard of any real risk. Both our veteran big men, Wallace and PJ Brown, were both "headaches" last year.



> I mean, ignoring the fact that he's been a problem child at New Orleans and Denver, do we really need to get into his off the court driving issues?


I dunno. Our head coach was thrown in the clink for cocaine. Wallace openly defiend





> Unless he underwent a drastic turnaround, you would have a really good outside shooter, defensive liability, and poor decision maker who would only rarely sniff any playing time.


Yah, its amazing that the most efficient scorer on the Bulls would not get to sniff any playing time. With Skiles as the coach, I bet you are right though.

----

For instance, last season, who would have been the more productive NBA player given 20 minutes a night. Thabo or Smith? What about this season? Yes, Thabo is longer and a better defender, but we have tons of gritty defenders. What many have agreed on is that the team is in short supply of are guys like Gordon that can flat fill it up. Smith has this skill as well.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> And Noah isn't?


This was in reference to Chandler, and how he can't play big minutes alongside Wallace.

Fair point, but I don't have Noah taking up big minutes this year, personally. Even if he did, though, I like his hands at this point way more than Chandler's. Noah has more offensive game right now than Chandler did at his age. 

When Noah gets to the line, he'll make free throws...and we've seen his athleticism get him to the line in college and here in preseason. 



I have less a problem with Wallace/Noah down low than I do with Wallace/Chandler. Ben and Tyson would be two guys with awful hands, and awful free throw shooting.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



L.O.B said:


> Cap room and luxury taxes should come into the equation when talking about why we should have kept both Chandler and JR Smith.


Long term, sure. The obvious solution to this is not to overpay Ben Wallace, but that's water under the bridge.

If these tax concerns become an immediate problem, I have faith in Paxson's ability to pull off a salary dump trade. He already showed he could do this with Chandler and Smith already.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> I dunno. Our head coach was thrown in the clink for cocaine. Wallace openly defiend.



Skiles had a very long period of proving he had reformed. Many years of proving that as a player and coach. JR Smith hasn't shown any sign of progress in this regard, we always hear the same consistently bad stories about him.

Wallace's track record shows him being a positive team influence with a rare instance of taking away from the team (i'm thinking about his moment against Flip Saunders, not the headband thing). 



The guys I don't want on this team have a nonstop bad track record...i dont think it's insane to want that off my team.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> I have faith in Paxson's ability to pull off a salary dump trade. He already showed he could do this with Chandler and Smith already.



When Chandler was traded, he was coming of a year of weird nagging injuries (acid reflux?).... I think there was no question he had to have that salary cleared off the books. Once you make the decision that this $10 mil per year guy WONT PLAY... you dont want him to tear something in practice that year and make the contract unmoveable.

you move the contract, and move on. we have filled in what Tyson gives us with other players. There's only so many roster spots.



Similarly, you say we'd pad our roster better by keeping JR Smith around. Personally, I'm fine with the padding JamesOn Curry provides. Neither him, nor JR Smith, would play much this year...even after a Kobe trade. If JR gives you a little more experience, he negates it with his behavior. So I'll take a JamesOn Curry for my last guard on the roster.

Again, no need for much at bench-SG when you get Kobe.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Another long JR Smith thread...didn't see this coming.

I see a lot of "we should have kept Smith _and_ Chandler" type comments. They were traded for each other, so I assume we're clear that they wouldn't have both been on the roster, and that these comments are made in order to group the two as young players with talent who the Bulls either should have kept or gotten a better return on?

I don't think there's much doubt that in 20/20 hindsight, and particularly post-trade deadline last year, the Chandler trade sucked. The JR Smith trade? I really don't think about that one, ever. He scored some points when he was literally the only SG Denver had. Good for him. Then he got his minutes slashed when Karl found other guys to play at SG. Now it appears he's getting one last chance to get PT in Denver before he gets banished to the doghouse permanently. I'll take our guards.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> There's only so many roster spots.


See, that's the thing.

If we make the consolidation trade, we're "too thin." If we accumulate plenty of assets so the consolidation trade is less painful, "there are only so many roster spots."






> Personally, I'm fine with the padding JamesOn Curry provides.


I've seen JamesOn play a couple of preseason games. I've seen JR Smith play 20+ of near 16 PER ball while pouring in the points with an eFG higher than any player on our team. I think JR is more of a proven commodity at this point. We'll be very, very lucky if JamesON can score like JR Smith can. Highly unlikely.


I like keeping a JR Smith around b/c there is little risk in doing so, he fills a need that the team is in short supply of (scoring), he'd be the most efficient player in the skill we're in short supply of, and he'd be nice to have playing if a consolidation trade ever did go down, especially if it involved Gordon. Now that KG is on a team we very well may be going to be going head to head with at some point, the Gasol talks have died down, its less of a big deal.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> I was thinking of Smith on the roster post-consolidation trade. Yah, he wouldn't be a key guy in a consolidationt trade.
> 
> There is a difference between risk and headache. I still have not heard of any real risk. Both our veteran big men, Wallace and PJ Brown, were both "headaches" last year.


But there's the risk that he's going to get on the court and suck, in the case of getting playing time after a consolidation trade. Byron Scott decided his risks didn't exceed the potential reward and George Karl decided the same thing late last season and so far this preseason. 

George Karl's exact words:


> I just think J.R. had too many bad plays (Tuesday) for a team that wants to be a championship team," Karl said. "Last year, we tolerated it. This year, it probably won't be tolerated.


This after proclaiming that Smith was "done" for the remainder of the postseason last year because of his terrible decision making.



> I dunno. Our head coach was thrown in the clink for cocaine. Wallace openly defiend


Yeah, but Skiles had 15 years or so to make up for that. I wouldn't normally mention a player's off-court driving issues, but they really are astounding and combined with Smith's issues on the court and in the locker room, may be indicative of some deeper issues.

First of all, Smith wrecked Carmelo Anthony's car during last season. He managed to have his license suspended 5 times over the course of the year. And then in June a passenger in his car was killed when Smith ran a stop sign and wrecked the car (lucky for the Nuggets Carmelo wasn't with him that day!).



> Yah, its amazing that the most efficient scorer on the Bulls would not get to sniff any playing time. With Skiles as the coach, I bet you are right though.


An efficient outside shooter but a non-existent defender and bad decision maker. It seems that Byron Scott and George Karl would agree.



> For instance, last season, who would have been the more productive NBA player given 20 minutes a night. Thabo or Smith? What about this season? Yes, Thabo is longer and a better defender, but we have tons of gritty defenders. What everyone has agreed that the team is in short supply of are guys like Gordon that can flat fill it up. Smith has this skill as well.


It depends on the situation. If you're talking post-consolidation trade, and you have Kobe Bryant on the floor, I would guess that the weaknesses of Smith's game would probably outweigh the strengths, as they do with AI in Denver, a team in far more desperate need of outside shooting than the Bulls.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

this is unbelievably funny. first there's a thread about pax being right about smith. then i read moving him was a mistake, because he could have been the "big guard" and explosive scorer with the "blistering" eFG. then it's revealed that he was benched in 24 starts for a smaller, less talented guard, then i read that maybe the bulls coach should make concessions for talented, though troubled players; then there's some spin about how knuckleheads "win" in the nba, so the bulls should be able to take one or more on; then, the coach's transgressions are compared to smith, for reasons i still don't understand. then, after all that, well, "he could have been part of the consolidation trade for gasol or KG. WTMF???? all this over a borderline nba'er?

i swear, this board gives an entirely new meaning to the term "debate"........:whatever:


----------



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

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Long term, sure. The obvious solution to this is not to overpay Ben Wallace, but that's water under the bridge.
> 
> If these tax concerns become an immediate problem, I have faith in Paxson's ability to pull off a salary dump trade. He already showed he could do this with Chandler and Smith already.


When the trade happened, it appeared that Tyson was the one being overpaid not the defending DPOY. 

Would you be happy with a salary dump, like Phoenix's? Kerr had to trade 2 1st round picks along Kurt Thomas to get under the cap. If you have the chance look up Bill Simmon's BS report with Steve Kerr. Steve goes into detail about how that lopsided Thomas trade happened.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



The Truth said:


> An efficient outside shooter but a non-existent defender and bad decision maker. It seems that Byron Scott and George Karl would agree.


Yah. Its odd that he's averaged 22 minutes a game in his career.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> This is the part I'd like to hear some elaboration on.
> 
> What, honestly, are the risks?


Lots of noise. Distractions. Bickering. The season wears on players as it is, without adding more to the mix.



> PJ Brown, our team captain, did the same thing last year.


He was always professional though. No "I’m not _trying_ to be a team cancer,"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> noise. Distractions. Bickering.



Yah, I agree. Pretty much what Ben Wallace and PJ Brown ended up doing. ANd that's the worst case scenario. No big deal at all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



The Truth said:


> Yeah, but Skiles had 15 years or so to make up for that.


Yup. Skiles was around the same age as JR Smith when he was tossed in jail.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I agree. Pretty much what Ben Wallace and PJ Brown ended up doing. ANd that's the worst case scenario. No big deal at all.


Even less of a big deal with JR not being a Bull


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Both our veteran big men, Wallace and PJ Brown, were both "headaches" last year.


Correction: 'Professional' headaches.

What they did was nothing but a blip on the 82 game radar. This guy hasn't even gotten out of the gate good and Karl is taking swipes at him and he's apologizing to the team.

If Paxson really wants a scorer, I'd bet he can get one better suited to the Bulls than JR.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah. Its odd that he's averaged 22 minutes a game in his career.


Yes, and it's also strange that he averaged 24.5 minute per game for a Hornets team that won 18 games. 

You would then expect his minutes to increase in his second season, right?

Well they didn't. He averaged 18 minutes per game in his second season. He was pretty much benched late in the season, and only averaged 10.9 minutes over the last 30 games that season.

So then he was traded to Denver, who didn't have another shooting guard on the roster, and I documented above how his playing time diminished over the course of last season. So although his average career minutes are respectable for a bench player, most of these were with a terrible Hornets team during his rookie season, and his playing time has diminished significantly as he seemingly wore out his welcome with two different coaches.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah. Its odd that he's averaged 22 minutes a game in his career.


Not too much different from Brad Sellers rookie season, if I recall correctly.

He'll end up in Europe too if he doesn't get his head on straight.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I agree. Pretty much what Ben Wallace and PJ Brown ended up doing.


Not at all. See the end part of the post you quoted from and my 'blip' post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> If Paxson really wants a scorer, I'd bet he can get one better suited to the Bulls than JR.


For nothing? Doubtful. Who do you have in mind?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Let's not forget, George Karl benched him in the postseason and appears to be fed up with him early in the preseason. And this on a team that even with JR's respectable 39% from 3 point range, ranked 28th in the NBA in 3pt% last season.

And Chicago ranked 2nd in the league.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> For nothing? Doubtful. Who do you have in mind?


We weren't getting JR for nothing either. We were getting him because his coach didn't want him. We were getting him in exchange for some massive migraines.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



The Truth said:


> You would then expect his minutes to increase in his second season, right?
> 
> Well they didn't.


And then they bumped right back up to 20+ in his 3rd.





> So then he was traded to Denver, who didn't have another shooting guard on the roster, and I documented above how his playing time diminished over the course of last season.


Yah. It would be the same story with Ben Gordon if AI joined the roster. If your minutes as a SG fall when your team trades for AI, that's really not much of a news flash.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> It would be the same story with Ben Gordon if AI joined the roster.


I doubt they'd fall the way J.R.'s have.

It would be entertaining to watch and Karl would try to make it work. Gordon, after all, is a proven commodity.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah. It would be the same story with Ben Gordon if AI joined the roster. If your minutes as a SG fall when your team trades for AI, that's really not much of a news flash.


Not something ben has to worry about.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



GB said:


> I doubt they'd fall the way J.R.'s have.


Likely not. Gordon is the better player. But his minutes would go down.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Of course Paxson was right about Smith. It's not like that was a tough decision.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

OK, that's enough of this back n' forth about JR Smith from my end. 

Its the same kind banter that was going down post Chandler dump, except for a lesser player. I'm not a big JR Smith fan by any stretch, but its pretty clear he's already a decent young NBA player and has tremendous upside on top of that. 

Its far from the end of the world that Paxson dumped him. If we lost Gordon in a consolidation trade or he went down to injury, we really could use a guy like him. I still would not mind him for 10-15 minutes of scoring punch off the bench either, even with the current roster. There isn't anyone else on this squad that is better suited for it and there is little risk to keeping him around.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Likely not. Gordon is the better player. But his minutes would go down.


I'm guessing if the Nugget had Ben Gordon they wouldn't make the Iverson trade in the first place.

JR Smith
Tyson Chandler
Jamal Crawford
Eddy Curry

These are the guys in the constant laments on this board. How many winning seasons have any of these guys had outside of a Bull uniform? It's amazing to me how some people can be so down on our roster, on a GM and Coach who turned a team around from the lauqhingstock of the league to a contender, and on a roster full of young and exciting talent, but can be so impressed with the marginal, one-dimensional talent we've let go.

I re-read some highlights from the "Crawford Update" thread the other day and got quite a few laughs. Some of those conversations -- not just about Crawdaddy, but about NBA philosophy, Tyson, and Eddy as well -- are incredibly amusing to me because they are repeated almost verbatim in many threads on this board. 

Some folks never learn, even when the truth bites them in the avatar.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Lets say you keep JR Smith this whole time... you trade for Kobe, and JR gets some bench minutes at SG here and there.

If JR is a malcontent, as you prepare for a playoff run... doesnt that wear on your ballclub? As you're trying to get them mentally focused and prepared for a grueling playoff series (against, say, the Pistons).... wouldnt you want everyone as focused as possible?


Why risk something explosive with a guy who is playing minutes (on that team) similar to what Griffin might play on the current one? You're right, k4e, JamesOn Curry might be a stretch as a comparison... but any way you slice it, JR would not play on this team. Even after a lopsided trade.




I think, more than actually wanting JR Smith on this team, you're more interested in proving your point -- that Skiles and Paxson are wrong to avoid malcontents. I just don't understand how it means so much to you, when they've proven they can find good players who FULLY want to be NBA pros, and play a team game. 

I agree with you that Tyson is no malcontent... but I'll take Wallace's man-on defense to Chandler's any day. So for that reason, I don't fret over his contract being out of our way. 




I'll concede that keeping Tyson's contract around to see if a KG trade could have born good things for the franchise. But just as easily, Tyson gets injured and becomes Nene. His salary holds us back for awhile. [strike]Except, not in your world, because the Bulls should never rein in their spending. Greatest Attendance Evarrrr!![/strike]

--Easy there, partner. Stuff like that turns personal fast. Thats a no-no (going personal) around these parts. Good post otherwise. --GB


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Wynn said:


> I'm guessing if the Nugget had Ben Gordon they wouldn't make the Iverson trade in the first place.
> 
> JR Smith
> Tyson Chandler
> ...



Hmmm. I'd bet that Isaiah would take a flyer on J.R.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> I think, more than actually wanting JR Smith on this team, you're more interested in proving your point -- that Skiles and Paxson are wrong to avoid malcontents. I just don't understand how it means so much to you, when they've proven they can find good players who FULLY want to be NBA pros, and play a team game.



He did say that he's "not a big JR Smith fan by any stretch".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> Except, not in your world, because the Bulls should never rein in their spending.



Not true at all. Actually, looking back at the last few years, spending all those MAX salary dollars on Antonio Davis, Tim Thomas and Ben Wallace looks like overpayment run amok.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> And then they bumped right back up to 20+ in his 3rd.


When he joined a team that didn't have another shooting guard on the roster.



> Yah. It would be the same story with Ben Gordon if AI joined the roster. If your minutes as a SG fall when your team trades for AI, that's really not much of a news flash.


Ben Gordon would get a hell of a lot more playing time than Smith got late last season. 

And I think you're ignoring the fact that he's getting very little playing time despite the fact that his team is terrible at 3 point shooting, the best attribute of Smith's game.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



kukoc4ever said:


> Not true at all. Actually, looking back at the last few years, spending all those MAX salary dollars on Antonio Davis, Tim Thomas and Ben Wallace looks like overpayment run amok.


Every exec makes mistakes. It's not that you make them, it's how you respond to them.

We're out of the cellar, and the future is looking bright...so Pax is a honors student so far, in my book.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Not only that, but Wallace is the only contract Paxson negotiated. AD was brought in simply to get away from Jalen's contract a little earlier. Thomas was needed to match salaries in the Curry trade, I think.

That's not to say we didn't overpay those guys for their (non)-production, but we didn't choose to pay those particular players what their contracts called for either.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

I never get how people can rave about a team's focus, determination( jib) or whatever , but a single player who has never derailed a team with supposedly far less of these qualities like people are claiming he would do so to the bulls.

somethings fishy there .

if a guy is too much of a problem , the coach can simply not play him ,or better yet coach him and get him to be the player he wants him to be, its not like jamesOn curry is going to be logging alot of minutes this year anyway or really any year anytime soon, the difference is of course JR Smith has proven worthy of playing time and provides somethings the bulls can really use right now, somethings they really dont have enough of.( explosive outside scoring, perimeter size and athleticism) and of course there is the added benefit of that he is of much more value around the league in trade and its not like the bulls couldn't use a little extra when trying to make a trade here and there for a kobe or a gasol.

but no, the psyche's of kirk, the ben's, andres and luol are far too delicate to even share a training camp with smith .


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> I never get how people can rave about a team's focus, determination( jib) or whatever , but a single player who has never derailed a team with supposedly far less of these qualities like people are claiming he would do so to the bulls.
> 
> somethings fishy there .
> 
> ...


Bulls didn't want JR. Bulls don't need JR. All is good.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> if a guy is too much of a problem , the coach can simply not play him ,or better yet coach him and get him to be the player he wants him to be



OK, this is exactly where I want this debate to go.

Do coaches really do this? Do coaches reform players? My answer is no. Phil Jackson didn't reform Dennis, didn't do anything of the sort.

It's very rare to get a basketball genius and a kind caring nurturer all in one person. You can't generally have Scott Skiles and Stuart Smalley all in one person. You can't even get Scott Skiles and Maurice Cheeks in one person.


So the coach will not reform anyone. Nurturers like Mo Cheeks shockingly seem to have trouble winning games. They usually get beat by teams that are a cohesively focused, and are after their goal. Now, when I have seen problem guys "reformed," it's usually done by the team around them.


Case in point, Dennis was on his best behavior on veteran, winning teams. Had he been taking his shoes off at midcourt (like Spurs-time), Jordan would have messed him up. David Robinson: not that kind of personality. You don't do that shoes thing when your on-court leadership is level 10. When Jordan was out of the picture, Dennis regressed...behaviorally. 

On some level, everyone rebels against the coach. I'm sure Deng doesnt totally dig Skiles... Tyson is no problem guy, but he obviously didnt either. I have no problem with that. Hate the coach.

Don't detract from the team. That's the line where JR Smith is on the other side of.



Really, we shouldn't be sad that Skiles does not work with problem guys. He should not have to. Mo Cheeks HAS to...thats why he was hired.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> but no, the psyche's of kirk, the ben's, andres and luol are far too delicate to even share a training camp with smith .


Actually, no.

They just didn't want to the trouble that could come. He wasn't Paxson's kind of guy.

Plain and simple.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

*Bulls didn't want JR. Bulls don't need JR. All is good.*

(bolded for emphasis).....:greatjob:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> and of course there is the added benefit of that he is of much more value around the league in trade and its not like the bulls couldn't use a little extra when trying to make a trade here and there for a kobe or a gasol.
> 
> but no, the psyche's of kirk, the ben's, andres and luol are far too delicate to even share a training camp with smith .


The Bulls got cap space to sign Griffin, and picks they used to get JO Curry and Aaron Gray. 

Do you think Denver can get more value for Smith now? I doubt it. If they could trade him for a #1 pick to Phoenix, my guess is that they would. Their only hope is Isiah Thomas (who seems to love undisciplined chuckers who don't play defense), but he's preoccupied at the moment..


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> OK, this is exactly where I want this debate to go.
> 
> Do coaches really do this? Do coaches reform players? My answer is no. Phil Jackson didn't reform Dennis, didn't do anything of the sort.
> 
> ...


:greatjob:


----------



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

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

How does Dennis Rodman get thrown into the conversation with JR Smith? 
George Karl isn't considering benching JR Smith because he wears a dress and kicks photographers in the family jewels. Karl is benching Smith cause he doesn't understand the game. Rodman can be accused of a lot of things but he had a high basketball IQ and he knew how to play the game.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



McBulls said:


> The Bulls got cap space to sign Griffin, and picks they used to get JO Curry and Aaron Gray.
> 
> Do you think Denver can get more value for Smith now? I doubt it. If they could trade him for a #1 pick to Phoenix, my guess is that they would. Their only hope is Isiah Thomas (who seems to love undisciplined chuckers who don't play defense), but he's preoccupied at the moment..


i hate to break it to you but the going rate for both picks combined is about 1.5 mil.

2 50 or so 2nd round picks are worth basically nothing...nothing they would have to give a player up over anyway , they litterally could have sent cash and gotten both guys its worth so little.

leonardo barbosa off of basically the same season the same offseason , give or take a stat or 2 (but the statistical impact was about the same ppg 13.1 for barbosa 13.0 for smith , efg 558. for barbosa .557 for smith, TS% .589 for barbosa and .585 for smith PER 15.30 for barbosa 15.76 for smith )was given a 5 year 33 million dollar deal. so this point to me falls on deaf ears that smith's contributions are so imsignificant when in the scheme of things they are in fact worth quite a bit on the open market, especially at his age and relative potential level.

the dispute is over giving away something of value for what is essentially nothing or mot very much , really all I'm hearing people saying he's not so good but the #'s say otherwise in every possible way, or that people really aren't as informed on this matter as they think .

all i can really gather from this is there must be something else like maybe people dont have as much faith as they say that the bulls would be able to stay on the straight and narrow with JR around because with smith himself there is nothing wrong with.


----------



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

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> i hate to break it to you but the going rate for both picks combined is about 1.5 mil.
> 
> 2 50 or so 2nd round picks are worth basically nothing...nothing they would have to give a player up over anyway , they litterally could have sent cash and gotten both guys its worth so little.
> 
> ...


DaGrinch,

May I ask how many Nuggets games did you watch last year? By just going by statistics, you miss quite a bit of the story. I've had the misfortune of watching some really bad play by Nugget players, JR's basketball IQ reminds me of another Nugget player, Rodney White. Rodney White might be the dumbest player I've watched play the game but JR Smith is a close second.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



L.O.B said:


> DaGrinch,
> 
> May I ask how many Nuggets games did you watch last year? By just going by statistics, you miss quite a bit of the story. I've had the misfortune of watching some really bad play by Nugget players, JR's basketball IQ reminds me of another Nugget player, Rodney White. Rodney White might be the dumbest player I've watched play the game but JR Smith is a close second.


I have league pass , so i've watched my share usually when they played on the east coast also i have seen him in past seasons , summer league and even rucker league, i never called him a cerebral assasin and it wasn't role to beat teams with heady play, his role was to put up points , and he did that and he did it rather efficiently especially considering the shots he was taking.

i dont see a comparison between white and smith , white was a scrub, he really didn't do anything well enough to deserve playing time. JR is different he has always been able to get time in the nba even as an 18 year old because he is a rare athlete who can shoot.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



L.O.B said:


> How does Dennis Rodman get thrown into the conversation with JR Smith?
> George Karl isn't considering benching JR Smith because he wears a dress and kicks photographers in the family jewels. Karl is benching Smith cause he doesn't understand the game. Rodman can be accused of a lot of things but he had a high basketball IQ and he knew how to play the game.



Dennis in the past had put himself in the way of his team. I'm not a Dennis hater, but he would often let his antics take away from what the team goal was.

You can even argue this with regard to your last point (i.e. quitting on defense too early to aid the padding of his rebounding stats)... but we dont have to go there necessarily.



Main thing is... Rodman antics took away from his team, until he (for whatever reason) decided to rein them in. And his teams won.

Tyrus' antics don't damage the team in anyway; he just ends up donating more $ to his high school.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Rodman's flame out with the Spurs was pretty much an on-court disgrace. Un-lacing his shoes on the sideline... not even coming down the court on offense, turning away from the huddle... he acted like a real dick.

The deal with Smith is really simple. He's got elite level athleticism and an elite level skill... the guy can bomb the ball from anywhere like Allan Houston or Glen Rice. Clueless or not, those are winning skills in the NBA, and worthy of taking some time to try to polish into a good player. That's why you work on a guy like that and not ****can him. On the other hand, you can't just rely on a guy like that either, because there's no sure intention he'll every live up to his billing.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*

Everyone check out exactly what happens in this Youtube at the 1:31 second mark

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fuo7mFxeROo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fuo7mFxeROo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*OT: JR Smith to be traded to Detroit for Flip Murray?*

Aaron Gray and JamesOn Curry for J.R.Smith is looking even better if this trade goes down. I heard Detroit will also be able to dump Ronald Dupree on Denver. Can't wait to play JR so many times this upcoming season!


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

What's your source for this trade?


----------



## ozziesoxbulls (Sep 14, 2007)

chibul said:


> What's your source for this trade?


he does not have a source ,he just throwing around rumors,pax had j.r,now why trade and get him for 2nd time,if pax thought he'd fit with the team he wouldn't traded to denver for a bunch of garbage


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ozziesoxbulls said:


> he does not have a source ,he just throwing around rumors,pax had j.r,now why trade and get him for 2nd time,if pax thought he'd fit with the team he wouldn't traded to denver for a bunch of garbage


>Erased. Play nice --GB< How do you know if there are sources are not? If you googled it you would see multiple newspaper tossing around this potential trade.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071019/BLOG15/71019039/0/BLOG15

Sounds like you a thing for JR Smith.


----------



## ozziesoxbulls (Sep 14, 2007)

lougehrig said:


> >Erased. Play nice --GB< How do you know if there are sources are not? If you googled it you would see multiple newspaper tossing around this potential trade.
> 
> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071019/BLOG15/71019039/0/BLOG15
> 
> Sounds like you a thing for JR Smith.


i'm not doubting the jr smith to pistons rumor i doubt about a possible deal that would send jr back to us


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Denver Nuggets guard J.R. Smith was suspended for the first three games of the regular season "for conduct detrimental to the team."
> 
> Nuggets player personnel director Mark Warkentien declined on Saturday to specify Smith's transgression.
> 
> ...


http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7356946


As I've said before...I'm just glad we don't have this kind of stuff dominating the talk with the Bulls.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> OK, this is exactly where I want this debate to go.
> 
> Do coaches really do this? Do coaches reform players? My answer is no. Phil Jackson didn't reform Dennis, didn't do anything of the sort.
> 
> ...


the coach doesn't have to nurture you , he has to manage you , there is a difference .

cheek may be a great guy but as a personel manager he may have lacked a bit , I'm not at all calling out for the next sideline mother teresa

rodman didn't have to be employee of the month he just had to play within the framework of the team , something PJax got him to do but Popovich couldn't, its really that simple.

these are gorwn men, its kind of funny to me that people feel they should be handled with such kid gloves...then of course in the next sentence call them or other players babies and pansies and say they need to grow up.(headbandgate , anyone?)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



Da Grinch said:


> rodman didn't have to be employee of the month he just had to play within the framework of the team , something PJax got him to do but Popovich couldn't, its really that simple.


I'm pretty sure Bob Hill was the coach of the Spurs teams Rodman was on.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm pretty sure Bob Hill was the coach of the Spurs teams Rodman was on.


you are right , Pop was the GM.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Looks like Paxson was right about J.R. Smith*



DengNabbit said:


> OK, this is exactly where I want this debate to go.
> 
> Do coaches really do this? Do coaches reform players? My answer is no. Phil Jackson didn't reform Dennis, didn't do anything of the sort.


I think that's pretty hard to say because in the cases where it would happen, it probably happens with younger guys. A guy like Rodman was already a vet and probably couldn't be "reformed", just "managed". I'd hold out some hope you might get through to a younger guy, however. 

I think it's hard to find examples though because often problems for younger guys don't always get a huge amount of attention. I dunno.


----------

