# Where's all the PAX bashers!!!????!!!!



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

I'd say after watching Nocioni take home the GOLD. That gold medal is a part of Chicago, too.

Shipping a would be disgruntled under paid no d playing Crawford to the hated Knicks. Face it guys ...the Bulls could not pay him what he wanted. He would have pouted all season especially if he had to split time.

Filing two major needs through the draft.

Standing pat on the potential all-star big men. 

Positioning Bulls to pay EC TC.

Establishing a winning hard working culture.

I say where are all of you now????


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

He did a fine job. He brought in Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni as impact players and he didnt give up Curry, Chandler or Hinrich.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> He did a fine job. He brought in Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni as impact players and he didnt give up Curry, Chandler or Hinrich.


Count me as cautiously optimistic. I'm not tremendously optimistic about Chapu, but I think he'll be worth what we've paid him from what I've seen. He still looks like a grinder with some skills to me on the level of a Brian Cardinal, but if you look at how much Cardinal got paid this summer, Chapu looks like a deal. Even though I don't expect him to be an NBA stud, Pax has to get a thumbs up on this move.

I like getting Deng, and I must admit I feel better after seeing him in the Summer Leagues. It's just my guess that his versatility is going to translate into the NBA. He could be special. Big thumbs up for getting him somehow.

But should he have taken Deng with the 3rd pick and called it a day? We have jettisoned our shooting guard Crawford and replaced him with another shooting guard who I am not so comfortable with, mini Ben Gordon. If Ben had Iverson speed, was some sort of a lock down defender, or was at least the right size for an NBA shooting guard, I'd feel much better about this draft pick. Ben is a high level talent, no doubt, but I believe Paxson has put him in a good position to fail, a la Krause with "small forward" Marcus Fizer. Tentative thumbs down for this one.

And the Crawford move? Eh, depends on Ben Gordon, I suppose, so I'll have to withhold judgement. Since this deal helped give us financial flexibility, we better not cheap out later when it's time to make a move.

And we've held on to the Twin Towers for now, but will we continue to? Be careful what you praise him for. It's still the middle of the summer.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> I'd say after watching Nocioni take home the GOLD. That gold medal is a part of Chicago, too.


For some strange reason. I don't feel a part of that Gold Medal.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> But should he have taken Deng with the 3rd pick and called it a day? We have jettisoned our shooting guard Crawford and replaced him with another shooting guard who I am not so comfortable with, mini Ben Gordon. If Ben had Iverson speed, was some sort of a lock down defender, or was at least the right size for an NBA shooting guard, I'd feel much better about this draft pick. Ben is a high level talent, no doubt, but I believe Paxson has put him in a good position to fail, a la Krause with "small forward" Marcus Fizer. Tentative thumbs down for this one.


I can agree with that. When Paxson made the trade for the additional pick, I was one of the folks hoping we'd walk away with Iguodala and Deng. That would ultimately cover up our weakness at the wings (2/3) by adding three players who play the position. 

I respect Gordon, he has great competitive edge and a no nonsense attitude that I like. He works hard and plays hard. I admire those things, but I'm just not a fan of "inbetweeners" at all. I dont like the effectiveness of combo guards and forwards (unless they are bench players). 

PG - Hinrich 32, Crawford 8, Duhon 8
SG - Crawford 22, Iguodala 26
SF - Nocioni 24, Deng 24 

Thats the 1-2-3 combination I would have liked to see. I'm also cautiously optimistic about the situation, moreso about Gordon though. I like Nocioni and Deng, I think one of them will step up as the starter and the other will be comfortable coming off the bench, it remains to be seen who plays which role though. We have a decent inside game with Chandler, Curry and Davis. Obviously we have a million point guards, so we're set there. Its just the gaping hole at the SG. 

I'm a firm believer that the SG is the least important position in basketball though, so I dont think its *that* big of a deal.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Paxson has had to operate within the constraints set by ownership. Until the Bulls become a winning team you can expect the potential implementation of the luxury tax to influence personel moves.

Whether you agree with it or not, the deal is that the LT will not be considered a hinderence to winning a championship once the team becomes a contender. But there's a long way to go between 23-59 and competing in the NBA Finals.

And recent championship teams have demonstrated that winning and the size of your payroll don't necessarily go hand in hand. The 03/04 Pistons had the league's 17th largest payroll. The 02/03 Spurs had the league's 17th largest payroll. And the 01/02 Lakers had the league's 12th largest payroll.

As Paxson heads into his second season as the Bulls' GM, this is certainly no time to gloat or burst your buttons over his achievements. His team is a work in progress. You may like or dislike the moves he's made so far. And to be sure, nobody ever bats 1.000 in life. But until this team starts to win consistently, John Paxson hasn't accomplished anything. 

The only measuring stick for a GM that matters to fans is the team's won/lost record. And in that regard he needs to be given a reasonable amount of time to turn things around. How long is reasonable? Well, most people think Kiki Vandeweghe has done a solid job with the Nuggets. The year before he took over as GM Denver was 40-42. During his first year they fell to 27-55. In his second year they fell even further to 17-65. His third year finally showed that his team was headed in the right direction as they broke the .500 barrier to finish 43-39. 

Reasonable people might agree that after two seasons of reshaping a roster, real progress should be shown in year three. So lets hold off on passing final judgement on Paxson's performance at least until the completion of the 05/06 season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Count me as cautiously optimistic. I'm not tremendously optimistic about Chapu, but I think he'll be worth what we've paid him from what I've seen. He still looks like a grinder with some skills to me on the level of a Brian Cardinal, but if you look at how much Cardinal got paid this summer, Chapu looks like a deal. Even though I don't expect him to be an NBA stud, Pax has to get a thumbs up on this move.
> ...


You would think we probably could have traded down a few spots and gotten him, while still keeping next year's pick (which looks to be a high one). That would have gained us an asset rather than trading a future one for a current one.

Otherwise, I'm generally in agreement, although I like the Crawford move less than you. I think Crawford at less than one million over the MLE was an acceptable deal, and probably one we could have gotten (even cheaper) if we'd made it up front instead of the foolish bare MLE with minimum raises and not a penny more offer we in fact made. But then again, all signs indicate they really didn't want Crawford back... so kudos for them for getting what they wanted at least. I think what they want is going to be mediocre (short of them really getting lucky with Luol), but opinions vary.

I'd really like to see them stop with all the gas about mentors and old, over the hill players being brought in to help. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm also not too sure about their handling of Curry. Variously it appears like they're slamming him in the press, and they slammed Crawford in the press, continuing examples of unprofessionalism in my book.

And while it's a minor move, I think from a perspective of setting the right tone, I don't like seeing them let a guy like Lint get away... yet another year where a kid that's worked his tail off for us isn't rewarded. At some level, the benefits of setting a good example there and backing up all the rhetoric about hard work ought to pay off. And it'd be nice to actually retain a young player.

I see things as two steps forward, two steps back.

Good:
* Noicini- looks like a solid backup at the very worst... an upgrade over last year.
* Deng- my hope for the future.

Uncertain, leaning to bad:
* Gordon

Bad:
* Crawford trade
* Giving up, on net, rather than gaining assets on draft night. I think we could have traded down for Deng, kept #31, gotten something else, and not given up our pick next year.
* Rhetoric against players both current and former
* Not sending a good message by rewarding Lint with a 1 year guarantee.

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

Keep in mind that there are other things going on too, which while they aren't the Bulls fault, are likely to affect our season:

* Chandler is supposedly working hard, but he's also still _rehabilitating_ when last mentioned, and not completely healthy. That seems to be our biggest single issue, and unfortunately nothing can be done about it.

* Curry has obviously not worked out ideally. That's the second biggest issue.

I'm not averse to trading either of these guys... it's impossible to say for me what they're worth at this point. I mean, if we have a good idea that they aren't going to make it, it's better to unload them for what we can get. On the other hand, a badly wrong guess here will be the sort of thing you don't recover from- the Bulls have more information than anyone else about it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> I'd say after watching Nocioni take home the GOLD. That gold medal is a part of Chicago, too.
> 
> Shipping a would be disgruntled under paid no d playing Crawford to the hated Knicks. Face it guys ...the Bulls could not pay him what he wanted. He would have pouted all season especially if he had to split time.
> ...


I don't think it's "bashing" Pax to disagree with some of his moves. I didn't like the Rose/Marshall for AD/JYD trade, I didn't like the timing of Pax's release of Blount, I didn't like the NBDL all stars we trotted in and eventually gave up on all of them, I didn't like the sign & trade of Crawford (he won't be nearly as easily replaced as many of you seem to think), I think the Nocioni signing was ok but that the Bulls probably would have been better off making a run at Stephen Jackson. SO many of you are gushing over Nocioni because his Argentinian team won the gold and thats nice and all but Nocioni is HOPEFULLY a solid NBA sf, nothing more. I like Pax's drafts so far, I wasn't on board with Hinrich, I wanted Hayes, but Hinrich has shown that he was probably the better choice. I liked the drafting of Deng. I'm a little reserved on trading our draft pick to acquire Gordon. He has to pan out in a big way or else we lost a pick in a draft that could be pretty nice. And honestly, I don't see a true position for Gordon on the Bulls, I don't think this small backcourt idea is exactly the panecea of basketball ideology. I am also dissappointed that the Bulls were unable to sign another solid vet like Wesley Person or Bob Sura to add to the team, it is far too young in it's current state. 

In any case, Pax has made many blunders IMHO, but he is a rookie GM and I am willing to stick with him to see what his overall plan is. So far it doesn't seem all that encouraging to me although he has brought in some nice young talent and we finally have a small forward again. Plus he has been financially responsible to a fault so maybe that will pay off down the road. I don't care for a lot of Pax's moves but I am willing to ride the storm to see if they work out.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Paxson has had to operate within the constraints set by ownership.


I agree that if this is the constraint which Paxson operates under, much of the blame that's directed at Pax should be directed at Reinsdorf for his short-sightedness.

However, I recall several posters insisting this was not the case.

Now, I'm not trying to call any of those posters out specifically, but I think it's fair to try and establish things one way or the other. Is Pax calling his own shots, or does he face ownership meddling in his affairs? 

To me, if ownership is forceing him to move or not based on money (when we're a big market team and it's ownership themselves that helped put us in the cap mess we're in -re: Jalen Rose), and if ownership is dabbling even further by setting requirements for trading players (re: the Curry article the other day)- well, then Paxson deserves a lot more leeway because he's got a lot fewer options.

---------

As a final note, I think it's unfair to give Paxson the leeway of comparing him to Kiki Vandweghe. Yes, the first year Kiki took over they fell from 40 to 27 wins, and then to 17 his second year, but it's important to note he only took over towards the end of the summer his first year. He couldn't draft the guys he wanted, he couldn't sign the guys he wanted, and he couldn't trade the guys he wanted going into the 27 win season. *In effect, Kiki's team was largely set for him going into that year.* 

Kiki was more or less given a 27 win team to work with and went down to 17 after his *first summer* of being able to retool. He then went up to 43 wins after his *second summer*.

Pax, on the other hand, had the luxury of an entire off-season to make changes. He took over during the 30 win season, and had an entire off-season to draft, sign, and trade (as he desired). After his *first summer*, the Bulls fell to 23 wins. OK, if you accept that Pax wanted "his own guys", that's fine, but the fair comparison for the future is to look at what guys like Kiki and Dumars did after two years, two drafts, two summers.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm a little reserved on trading our draft pick to acquire Gordon. Did i miss something or didn't we trade our draft pick for Deng. As for Nocioni he kicked the usa teams SF's big time. He may not be a superstar but who would you rather have in the fox hole next to you. Nocioni is a stud, tough, with a huge heart. He will quickly become a fan favorate with the way he plays.

david


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I like what Paxson has done this summer, and the Chapu signing might turn out to be a real bargain in the long run.

I just don't know if its enough to turn the corner.


----------



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

Relax, the pre-season hasn't even started. How many times do you really want to rehash these arguments that never really go anywhere ?

Besides, people are still drooling over our newfound enforcer and the Olympics he had.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Paxson certainly has turned the team around.

We went from 15 to 21 to 30 wins. Seemed like the right direction.

Then we fell to 23. Seems like the wrong direction.

And then there's spin.

EDIT:

The kind of spin we're used to. Chandler's going to be better than Brand. He's going to be the next KG. He only needs the same kind of development time that TMac or KG needed. 

Now the SAME rhetoric is being used to sell us on Paxson. He's the next Kiki or Dumars. He only needs the same kind of development time that Kiki or Dumars needed.

Blah blah.

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I'm a little reserved on trading our draft pick to acquire Gordon. Did i miss something or didn't we trade our draft pick for Deng. As for Nocioni he kicked the usa teams SF's big time. He may not be a superstar but who would you rather have in the fox hole next to you. Nocioni is a stud, tough, with a huge heart. He will quickly become a fan favorate with the way he plays.
> 
> david


Speaking of trading next year's pick for Deng, I like the fact that we'll have a top talent like Luol on next year's roster with a year of pro experience under his belt. I'll take that over drafting a comparable talent next year with no NBA experience. And it's not like the kid's peaked...he won't turn 20 until April of 2005. And also keep in mind that next year's pick is top three protected, I believe.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Paxson certainly has turned the team around.
> 
> We went from 15 to 21 to 30 wins. Seemed like the right direction.
> ...


Is longing for mediocre vets like Rose, Marshall, and Toine Walker considered 'spin' too? :shy:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Speaking of trading next year's pick for Deng, I like the fact that we'll have a top talent like Luol on next year's roster with a year of pro experience under his belt. I'll take that over drafting a comparable talent next year with no NBA experience. And it's not like the kid's peaked...he won't turn 20 until April of 2005. And also keep in mind that next year's pick is top three protected, I believe.


I don't think anyone wants to hand back Deng for the pick. Gordon is another matter, however. Not only does Gordon have to play at a high level but he and Hinrich also need to be somewhat compatible for it to turn into a good move.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Reasonable people might agree that after two seasons of reshaping a roster, real progress should be shown in year three. So lets hold off on passing final judgement on Paxson's performance at least until the completion of the 05/06 season.


Respectfully Kismet the title of the thread is calling out those who are calling for Pax's head. Those who believe he should be fired after one full year on the job.

I believe Paxson has changed the culture of this team in one year and has probably filled this teams most glaring weaknesses. Of couse, it's still up to the players and coaches to get the job done.

You're right. The general manager position is one that requires a couple 2-3 years to evaluate effectiveness. That's exactly why I find it ludicrus for some posters on this board to be a part of the Fire Pax Club so soon into his tenure.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Where's all the PAX bashers!!!????!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's funny Ace I thought you were a member of the fire Pax/Skiles Clubs???? Maybe I am wrong.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> Relax, the pre-season hasn't even started. How many times do you really want to rehash these arguments that never really go anywhere ?
> 
> Besides, people are still drooling over our newfound enforcer and the Olympics he had.



Several times when there's nothing else interesting to talk about.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Where's all the PAX bashers!!!????!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> That's funny Ace I thought you were a member of the fire Pax/Skiles Clubs???? Maybe I am wrong.


I don't think I am but I am about a half a step away from joining the fire Pax club. The fire Skiles club I am not ready for...I want to see what he can do given a whole offseason.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Where's all the PAX bashers!!!????!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> In any case, Pax has made many blunders IMHO, but he is a rookie GM and <b>I am willing to stick with him to see what his overall plan is.</b> So far it doesn't seem all that encouraging to me although he has brought in some nice young talent and we finally have a small forward again. Plus he has been financially responsible to a fault <b>so maybe that will pay off down the road. I don't care for a lot of Pax's moves but I am willing to ride the storm to see if they work out.</b>


Ace, is that you?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Where's all the PAX bashers!!!????!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, is that you?


]


Yeah, thats me alright. I'm NOT overly optimistic so please don't mistake me not saying "fire Pax this instant" as a tacit approval of the things he has done. I am just thinking that ANY GM deserves the benefit of the doubt for at least a couple of seasons. I AM however afraid that Pax's mark won't be one that we are hoping for.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's all the PAX bashers!!!????!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> ]
> 
> 
> Yeah, thats me alright. I'm NOT overly optimistic so please don't mistake me not saying "fire Pax this instant" as a tacit approval of the things he has done. I am just thinking that ANY GM deserves the benefit of the doubt for at least a couple of seasons. I AM however afraid that Pax's mark won't be one that we are hoping for.


I tend to agree with you on this one. 

Strange. I guess I'm just not used to agreeing with you on anything, so it came as a bit of a shock that's all  Now, back our regularly scheduled disagreements and debates  :grinning:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I don't think anyone wants to hand back Deng for the pick. Gordon is another matter, however. Not only does Gordon have to play at a high level but he and Hinrich also need to be somewhat compatible for it to turn into a good move.


Keep in mind that had Indiana acquired the #3 pick Bird would have used it on Gordon as well. I understand people's reservations because of his height. But I believe that in the long run Bulls fans will like what they see out of a Hinrich/Gordon backcourt. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm still here. I've just been too busy on other boards to come and bash pax on a daily basis. I like the Nocioni find. But other than that, I'm not exactly enamoured with any of his other moves. Like Dabullz illistrated, this team took a big turn for the worst under Pax's reign. We still don't have a playoff team. Maybe Pax has brought us back up to the level of two years ago, but probably not.

Our season is predicated on a bunch of rookies and Eddy Curry. Sounds like more of the same old same old.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Paxson has changed the culture of this team in one year and has probably filled this teams most glaring weaknesses. Of couse, it's still up to the players and coaches to get the job done.


He has changed nothing the Bulls are still losers .The only thing that can change the culture of this team is to start winning games .All JP has done is bring in more players that HE likes but that doesnt equate to the Bulls being new and improved just new. 

The culture of the Bulls was one of losing and no matter if youre lazy and lose or get a million floor burns and a loss youre still losers

Id like to see us win befoere we proclaim things have changed for the better .


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that had Indiana acquired the #3 pick Bird would have used it on Gordon as well. I understand people's reservations because of his height. But I believe that in the long run Bulls fans will like what they see out of a Hinrich/Gordon backcourt. But that's just my opinion.


Thats right and they wouldve started him at the point not the two thats a huge difference :yes:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats right and they wouldve started him at the point not the two thats a huge difference :yes:


Agreed.

But I do tend to think that both Gordon and Hinrich will hold their value. So it probably just means that we will have to move one of the two if they can't play together.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

its been 4 and a half months since we lost a ballgame, the paxson bashers will be out come november or december, you can count on that.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats right and they wouldve started him at the point not the two thats a huge difference :yes:


Yes and no. Yes he would have played the point guard slot most of the time with Indiana. No, its not a huge difference because (for the thousandth time) Gordon will defend PG's with the Bulls. I don't care if he's 5'9" or 6'9", he will get his shot off against just about everyone. People should be more concerned with how much success Hinrich will have defending two guards. And if Paxson is able to somehow acquire a legit big guard then this whole issue becomes even less of a concern. As a backcourt tandem, Gordon and Hinrich will more than hold their own _this season._


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

while i absolutely dislike the job paxson has done , i wouldn't fire him . he should at least be given time to see how well his moves have worked out , he set such a guideline on cartwright at about one month into last season so i think he should be given at least that long ....so technically would not be one of those "paxson bashers"

at least not yet anyway.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> He has changed nothing the Bulls are still losers .The only thing that can change the culture of this team is to start winning games .All JP has done is bring in more players that HE likes but that doesnt equate to the Bulls being new and improved just new.
> ...


OK

KH--2 time ncaa championship runner-up
BG-- ncaa chanmpion
LD -- final 4
Duhon-- final 4 twice
Pippen--6 time nba champ
Nocioni--olympic bball GOLD medalist
AD--nba playoff performer several times


Rose--ncaa runner up/nba finals runner-up
Marshal--nba playoffs?
Hassel -- ------
Hoiberg -- -----------
Crawford-- -----------
JYD--bench player on playoffs raptors
Curry -- -------------
Chandler -- --------------

It has to be hard for you to refute the WINNING pedigree that Paxson has brought in. Sometimes you have to take a step back move forward. Pax has done this by going from 30 - 23 win. The Bulls will win more than 30 games this year. 

By creating a hard working roster things have changed for the better and this will equate to wins. Unfortunately for you it won't change the past.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> OK
> ...


None of that means absolutely nothing when you get to the Nba its basically starting over for them .College pedigrees dont win games in the nba didnt we learn anything from Jwills year here ?

All those college accolades dont mean nothing when youre down 20 at halftime of the 5th game of a west coast trip on a 5 game losing streak .

How do you take a step back when your back has been against the wall for 5 years ????

At this point in time the only way this team should be judged is on W-L everything else is just stringing us along to make the extra buck .


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> OK
> ...


to make your point you definite skewed the stats somewhat .

hassell and hoiberg were on the team that won the most games in the nba last year and donyell has been in the playoffs with the jazz when he was in uconn i am pretty sure his team was at least a sweet 16 squad and he won the big east at least 1ce, it should also be noted that none of the players on the bulls has ever been the best player on his team at the time they were most successful past high school ...something at least rose can make a claim to as a pacer


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Yes he would have played the point guard slot most of the time with Indiana. No, its not a huge difference because (for the thousandth time) Gordon will defend PG's with the Bulls. I don't care if he's 5'9" or 6'9", he will get his shot off against just about everyone. People should be more concerned with how much success Hinrich will have defending two guards. And if Paxson is able to somehow acquire a legit big guard then this whole issue becomes even less of a concern. As a backcourt tandem, Gordon and Hinrich will more than hold their own _this season._


Hinrich is going to have hella trouble guarding 2's and Gordon isn't a good defender guarding 1's or 2's really. It's going to be interesting but I don't share your confidence in a Gordon/Hinrich backcourt.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*NBA Inside Stuff*

Hey fellas

I am NOT a Pax basher and I like pretty much every move he has made in terms of changing the personality of the team. In watching the Detroit Pistons special on NBA Inside Stuff last week I was reminded of how much Paxson's philosophy is similiar to Joe Dumars. Dumars made a move even more criticized when he moved Grant Hill essentially for an unkown hustling power forard/center named Ben Wallace. He was killed in Detriot for not getting more. He continued making seemingly small "insignificant" moves and in 2 years had a moibound franchise in the playoffs, in 4 years had them winning NBA championship. The thing I see from Dumars is CONSISTENCY in his approach for what the Pistons are about. He does no deviate for "STAR" players, he just keeps adding players he believes in. 

Pax has been on the job for approximately 14 months and in that time he has fired a coach (his friend), traded away his two top scorers in Rose and Crawford, and lost a first round pick to career threatening injury. He has added for the most part (except for C Jefferies) players who have the work ethic he understands players need to build a championship calibur team. 

I support Pax and I believe that Pax has the huevos rancheros to trade Curry's fat ### away if he does not get with the program. I love it!

I say give Paxson at least 36 months to see if his philosophy and player evaluating skills are legit. He did all right with Hinrich as far as I am concerned. I predict the same for Gordon and Deng.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

you mean....Wheres all the Reactionaries?

eh, they're still here, waiting to get all "reactionary" about the next thing they can make a snap judgement on
worlds full of reactionaries.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: NBA Inside Stuff*



> Originally posted by <b>genex</b>!
> Hey fellas
> 
> I am NOT a Pax basher and I like pretty much every move he has made in terms of changing the personality of the team. In watching the Detroit Pistons special on NBA Inside Stuff last week I was reminded of how much Paxson's philosophy is similiar to Joe Dumars. Dumars made a move even more criticized when he moved Grant Hill essentially for an unkown hustling power forard/center named Ben Wallace. He was killed in Detriot for not getting more. He continued making seemingly small "insignificant" moves and in 2 years had a moibound franchise in the playoffs, in 4 years had them winning NBA championship. The thing I see from Dumars is CONSISTENCY in his approach for what the Pistons are about. He does no deviate for "STAR" players, he just keeps adding players he believes in.
> ...


Grant Hill was a UfA and was gonna sign with the Magic he and the Pistons agreed to a S & T so that the pistons could get compensation and Hill could get the most money he could get .

Dumars basically had nothing to do with as he was taking over as Hill was leaving .Your basically giving Dumars credit for the Magics incompetence in evaluating talent .


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> you mean....Wheres all the Reactionaries?
> 
> eh, they're still here, waiting to get all "reactionary" about the next thing they can make a snap judgement on
> worlds full of reactionaries.


5 years of losing and no one should be upset ???? If youve think posters are making snapped judgment when this franchise has been horrible the last 5 years youve got to be a Cubs fan :laugh:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> 5 years of losing and no one should be upset ???? If youve think posters are making snapped judgment when this franchise has been horrible the last 5 years youve got to be a Cubs fan :laugh:


ahh, see. You're a reactionary. You automatically panicked, and for all you knew, Pax was fixing the problem of the 5 years that he wasn't responsible for. Thats contributing to an internet mob action. I'm surprised Pax is still alive.

don't wory though, its a thinking orientation, its a panic mode that you can train yourself out of. 
You too can become a thinking, patient man, instead of a Grab Yer pitchfork, rope, and torch..... overalls wearing kind of kind of fella


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> ahh, see. You're a reactionary. You automatically panicked, and for all you knew, Pax was fixing the problem of the 5 years that he wasn't responsible for. Thats contributing to an internet mob action. I'm surprised Pax is still alive.
> 
> ...


Im not panicking Im just tired of all the rehashing of excuses .

You could say Pax is trying to fix a problem that he didnt create.

But then again you could also say he he is the problem seeing how this team was on the rise when he took over and has reverted back to circa year 2000 since he took over .

Its not that difficult to come to a new job that seemingly was doing well before you arrived break something and then blame the guy you replaced .

I dont want Paxsons head on a platter I just wish all this praising him like he hes done something would stop .


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

So John Paxson takes over in the offseason before the 2003-2004 season. The Bulls are a team on the rise, knowing this, Paxson doesnt make any moves before the season, the Bulls suck it up bigtime after supposedly being labeled an up and coming team, and this is Paxsons fault? Now he is trying to build a legitimate up and coming team and all people can do is fabricate lies about how Paxson broke up a team on the rise? 

Thats just unbelievably unfair and unlogical. 

Paxson isnt responsible for 5 years of losing. Paxson is responsible for this up and coming season and every season after where hes the general manager. 

The bottom line is, the only thing that will dismiss Paxson from the criticism of those who bash him is if the Bulls start winning. Unfortunetly, those people who bash him dont understand the process of undoing things in order to move forward. 

All they see is 30 to 23, bad job. 

If we go from 23 to 45 next season, great job. 

That doesnt mean he only did a great job in the successful season, it means that the picture he is putting together is finally starting to show.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Im not panicking Im just tired of all the rehashing of excuses .
> ...


first and formost, this team was definately NOT on the rise. It was on the crapper

and you can't just slap a fresh coat of paint on the house (if you even got a house) You must scrape off the old paint first. Sometimes you have to dimantle b4 you build. You can't build on a crappy foundation............LOL thats the last analagy.

Pax is building this team up from the bottom. He's got no choice. Besides, they were crap anyways, going to hell in a handbasket. Eddy Curry doesn't even have a crutch to lean on anymore. All thats left is one slacker in E-Marosa. The rest of the team are toughminded people. 

The leagues full of primadonnas that don't win in the long run. We launched most of those....theres 1, maybe two left......it aint over, Its still a process
(damn i lied, but that last thing wasn't really an analagy, its more of description)

remember what Pax said, and its true. The instant gratification thing isn't going on here. Tough to take after the wasted years already, but thats whats happening. Slow and steady


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> ahh, see. You're a reactionary. You automatically panicked, and for all you knew, Pax was fixing the problem of the 5 years that he wasn't responsible for. Thats contributing to an internet mob action. I'm surprised Pax is still alive.
> 
> ...


A sure sign of a strong argument is to come on and start insulting and baiting people. :|

How about we do something crazy like talk about basketball and talk about the moves this team is making, rather than begging everyone not to throw you into the briar patch.

Do I need three years to know I don't like what Paxson's doing? For me, no, not really. I see attitudes I don't like, approaches I wouldn't take. That's not at all unreasonable. If I see a car go over a ledge, I don't need to keep my eyes on it to know it's going to hit the bottom of the canyon. If I see a kid born with one arm, I don't need to wait three years to know he's not gonna have an arm when he's three. If I see a kid who looks fat and diffident in high school, I'm not going to be surprised to see him fat and diffident going into his fourth season in the NBA. It's not rocket science. 

Could I be wrong? Sure. Hell, I want this team to win... I _hope_ I'm wrong, but this isn't the pollyanna choir.

Yeah, some people are too impatient, just like other people are too patient. But that's only one dimension of the analysis... some people weigh the facts, make an honest appraisal, and decide they don't like the signals they see. Other people, of course, don't see the same things, and others still see them differently. And that's totally cool. Differing opinions is what keeps this site going... if we didn't have them, this place would be a total *** drag. 

So keeping that in mind that differing opinions are what makes this think tick, how about we have some respect for them, whether we disagree or not :yes:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> A sure sign of a strong argument is to come on and start insulting and baiting people. :|
> ...


gimme a break mike. you trying to cast me as the big bad wolf of no respect? MY goodness we're sensitive.

I honestly think many people think, and act like reactionaries, especially in this case. Its not namecalling. geeze relax amigo.

The whole point is...that a lot of people act like they know he's screwed up already, and they absolutely couldn't possibly know that. But they act like it. Which if you get right doen to it...is the core of an argument. Not being able to say you have a theory, instead of saying you have the TRUTH. *That* is the kernel of friction alot of times...thats what i adressed with the reactionary comment.

Funny, but this illuminates that ironic point that we both have desired the same thing, which is a basic tone down of the hyperbolic rhetoric. I think its the reactionarism that causes a ton of conflict on the board, and we all know who deals in that, don't pretend diferent
You just got me peged wrong amigo. I'm on the side of lets cool, this thing out. I may have come on strong with a litle r-word there, but wow, you sure did have a strong reaction...

Be that as it may, i think you are overreacting anyways, even if i was a total jerk. I'm not feeling this post of yours at all


BTW, this whole thread is a basic setup for a confrontation. "Where are the Pax bashers now?" Ladeda Neay Neay. I mean come on. You kiling me for joining in on the sentiment? Lock this thing up then for God sakes. The little r-word? it wasn't even directed at any poster in name. It just so happen i got quoted, and he teed himself up as the perfect example. I aint sorry Mike. Lock this up


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> You just got me peged wrong amigo. I'm on the side of lets cool, this thing out. I may have come on strong with a litle r-word there, but wow, you sure did have a strong reaction...


Alright, let's do it 

All I know is I'm not too enthused about a lot of the stuff I see from Pax/Reinsdorf/Skiles, and yeah, it puts me a bit on the defensive if people start labeling "people like me" as X Y and Z uncomplimentary things.



> BTW, this whole thread is a basic setup for a confrontation. "Where are the Pax bashers now?" Ladeda Neay Neay. I mean come on. You kiling me for joining in on the sentiment? Lock this thing up then for God sakes. The little r-word? it wasn't even directed at any poster in name. It just so happen i got quoted, and he teed himself up as the perfect example. I aint sorry Mike. Lock this up


Agreed, but one can hope that cooler heads will prevail. It seemed a better approach to me to deal with the problem by talking about it than simply locking the thread... that would... perhaps rightly... give the impression I'm trying to force my view on everyone else, and that's no good either. 

Never mind, I'm damned if I say something and damned if I say nothing


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> So John Paxson takes over in the offseason before the 2003-2004 season. The Bulls are a team on the rise, knowing this, Paxson doesnt make any moves before the season, the Bulls suck it up bigtime after supposedly being labeled an up and coming team, and this is Paxsons fault? Now he is trying to build a legitimate up and coming team and all people can do is fabricate lies about how Paxson broke up a team on the rise?
> 
> Thats just unbelievably unfair and unlogical.
> ...


that way too simplistic ...1st of all its not like he was just minding the store and all of a sudden it just went to heck on him .

he made moves that by even the most optimistic observers have to considered hit and miss. 

jay will got hurt , so he made a decision that it would be easier to get a 3 in FA than a pg so he chose a pg in kirk ...not bad but if he had stuck to his other draft choice jarvis hayes i actually think the team would be in better shape .

its hard to imagine any player who was a worse MLE pick up than scottie pippen , in fact it would have better if he had just sat on his hands in the 2003 offseason in retrospect. but on a 30 win team a team needs to do whatever he can ...but a player like jeff mcginnis or rafer alston could have been picked up and it wouldn't have cost anything close to the MLE and they would have easily fit the bill for pg depth ...the fact that paxson could have also if he had gone the sf route could have easily have had stephen jackson or could have gotten james posey have been done to death...with the vet exception he aquired kendall gill who played to mixed results and was not as good as the player the bulls had in his place in fred hoiberg.corie blount which imo wasn't bad , but cutting him for paul shirley who is not currently on the team and didn't really play at all because of a lacerated kidney is bad.

cutting hassell for linton johnson the 3rd was bad . ronald dupree is not a bull today , choosing to go back to the pistons , so any time spent developing him was wasted.

the trade of jalen rose and donyell marshall for JYD (already jettisoned because his production didn't match his salary) and antonio davis is a disaster , donyell ...all he did was avg. 16.2 pts. and 10.7 rebs as a raptor , this was as bad a trade as was made in the nba last season .

jamal crawford was traded for a bunch of players that are only valuable because their deals are over soon , not because of the players themselves , but time will tell on that one , but on the surface it looks like a bad move , these kind of deals always semm to be.

fizer was left to the expansion bobcats , after acl surgery , most players need a year of playing to fully come back , i cant see whoever the bulls choose to be their 15th man (most likely cezary trybanski) being better than fizer this upcoming year , especially since they could have just released him and signed him for min. and trybanski will get 1.7 mil for the season.

the draft pick of kirk is really the only thing anyone can say has worked out at all , but after a year to gauge the after effects its hard to say it was the best idea.

time will tell on the draft picks , but deng looks good and gordon well he was not exactly a guy who turned the summer league on fire , and considering he was the 3rd pick and considered nba ready , he should have , but he didn't i thought his game was very inconsistent on offense and his defense was poor. duhon looks like he could make the roster , but he may not because of pargo either way its not likely to help the bulls much in the win column, nocioni may be a player , but then again he may not be euro stars are a crapshoot , he could have a manu impact or he could be pepe sanchez , but most have slotted him in as a spot starter until deng is ready anyway.



for every person who say pax is cleaning up the roster it should be noted he has signed pip and he is clearly only around to collect a paycheck , and has been known to be extremely easy on the 2 C's despite what his press clippings say , his 1st summer and 2nd summer there has been a marked difference in the caliber of work chandler and curry have put in and curry has only put in work for at best half a summer.

the reason people are bashing paxson is not because they just dont want to like him , its because all of his moves , save kirk have turned to dirt and have generally been a step back .

pax's kind of people aren't anymore winners than the guys they have replaced , but until the bulls are filled with players good enough to win, they wont and it doesn't matter how good the person's work ethic is if they just dont have it in them to be good enough .

whats logical is that pax's moves have not worked out and until they do he shall have his critics , me being one of them.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> first and formost, this team was definately NOT on the rise. It was on the crapper
> 
> ...


So last year this time you didnt think we had a playoff team ?Almost everyone else did including Pax.He signed a washed up Pip to a 2 year friendship deal .He got trade rumors going 2 WEEKS INTO THE SEASON .He kept a coach whoever one else seemed to know was clueless around for the most important summer weve had post dynasty only to fire him 4 weeks into the season .

And before I hear the "that team started horribly he had to make a move" the Bulls finished November 4-12 the Heat finished 5-12 but they didnt make any dumb moves or do things to erode the teams confidence .

Youre talking as though Pax has made moves that without a doubt has turned or will turn the franchise around but the same moves could be construed as him simply restarting the entire rebuilding cycle over because he couldnt relate to players Jk had acquired .


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Alright, let's do it
> ...


true mos def

let me assure you that Mikedc was about that last person I was thinking of. It shouldn't take that long to come up with a few suspects however. Pax Bashers! well that brings a few names to mind, and i didn't type them either. 

Man even Murder is thrown around as a sentence for Johnny Jumpshot at times. Thats fairly hard to read too. But i'm a big boy, and i should be able to read those things 

it also makes you wonder how fair (or productive) it was of fleet to go on that line of posting.............not very very


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> whats logical is that pax's moves have not worked out and until they do he shall have his critics , me being one of them.


There has been a consistent purpose for all of his moves, whether or not they've been a step back. Getting rid of Rose was instrumental in building a team with Paxsons vision. 

As long as Paxson is consistent with his vision, I'm willing to give him 2 years to see where his plan takes us. I think what he is doing will pay off. 

Even if you dont think it'll pay off, I still contend that everyone should give him this next season atleast to make any final judgements. 

You fail to understand that a GM is like being a player, you cant expect immediate impact out of a general manager like you can with a player. 

I think the same folks who bash Paxson would rather have a GM like Isiah Thomas, who steps into office and plays all of the cards in his deck within a couple months. Even then, after a couple months, he'd get bashed for doing exactly that. 

Paxson is in a lose/lose situation. If he gets into office and plays all of his cards right away, people bash him for not being patient. If he waits on the right deals, people bash him for not making immediate impact.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> So last year this time you didnt think we had a playoff team ?Almost everyone else did including Pax.


thats why they play the games. Maybe everyone was wrong? 

Pax thought they were a playoff squad? Interesting theory thats probably not right to assume at all. Pax probably didn't like the team, but was openminded enough to give it a chance. He wasn't a my way or the highway guy in that case. Very big of him. He recognizes that he doesn't have all the answers. That will serve him well (the non arrogance)

He should have broke up the team from jump? hey yer right. they weren't any good



> He signed a washed up Pip to a 2 year friendship deal .He got trade rumors going 2 WEEKS INTO THE SEASON .He kept a coach whoever one else seemed to know was clueless around for the most important summer weve had post dynasty only to fire him 4 weeks into the season .


well chronicled mistakes



> And before I hear the "that team started horribly he had to make a move" the Bulls finished November 4-12 the Heat finished 5-12 but they didnt make any dumb moves or do things to erode the teams confidence .


maybe you want him to be Jery West? I think the kids got potential. And i definately don't think this teams attitude was Paxsons fault. This teams attitude always was idiotic. Pax is working on improving that with tough minded guys (and he's not putting up with bad attitudes that get you nowhere in the long haul. Break it down)



> Youre talking as though Pax has made moves that without a doubt has turned or will turn the franchise around[


No i'm not, I have often stated that he's not done everything right, but he's on the right path IMO. If you believe i believe i'm infallible ion this, thats not true. Plenty of room for me to be totally wrong



> but the same moves could be construed as him simply restarting the entire rebuilding cycle over because he couldnt relate to players Jk had acquired .


Nonsense. I just can't imagine this. You sell him way short probably. If they were winners, I bet you a buck he can relate to that


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

wrong button :no:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I have really have no problem with Pax trying to do things his way because he deserves the right too.

What I have a problem with is all the people who make these excuses for him and hype his moves when 12 months later the expectations for this team are WORSE.


I found these interesting quotes from when Pax first took over .
link



> "I know our team as well as anyone. I know the strengths and weaknesses of our team because I got to talk about them every night and look at the team from that vantage point."





> The constant contact with Bulls players on the road and at home has allowed Paxson to see how the players are developing as well as keep tabs on other NBA players



This is what was going on when he first took the job but the minutes something went wrong then his pr committee came out with give him more time because JK left a mess and he had to evaluate .I thought one of the main reasons behind his hiring was that he was around enought to know the team and to continue to build upon it without starting over but were right back to 3 more years .

You know that should be the Bulls boards slogan .

3 more years ........

and then we just recycle it every year


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> There has been a consistent purpose for all of his moves, whether or not they've been a step back. Getting rid of Rose was instrumental in building a team with Paxsons vision.
> ...


i dont feel he's had a consistent vision i think he's changed his vision a couple of times , the 1st summer he was all about getting in vets who knew about working hard , gill , pippen and simply augmenting what he was given by krause . 

within a month into the season he somewhat panicked and decided to build a team into his own image or something , he changed coaches , traded its star , instituted a new star sys. with Jc and Ec at the helm all the while replacing the recently injured TC with 2 power forwards , because that is essentially what AD and JYD are , it worked for a week but then reality set in, and it was basically a team without enough horses to win the games and the losing set in , now of course he's on this we will work hard for outr fans kick ...which is what he's saying but only a few weeks ago he traded one his hardest workers for a few spare parts , the only player really worth having is frank williams , and he has a suspect work ethic and he let LJ3 go for nothing who was also a hard worker , so he sys one thing but basically values another .

GM's are not like players you dont develop GM's they are supposed to know what they are doing from the 1st day , if paxson didn't know what he was doing they should not have hired him.

i have said numerous times i'll give him until a month into the season to gauge his moves , its a fair amount of time according to him , since that is how long he gave cartwright and he will have had 2 offseasons to get accomplished what he says he wanted to accomplish, this is his 17th month on the job zeke thomas has had all of 9 and has done much more as far as shaping the team into the team he wants isiah wanted a big time center but he didn't feel he really needed him , if so he could have matched the deal dallas gave GS. he chose to put his eggs in JC's basket ...something our own Gm was unwilling to do for a slight amount over the MLE to start

entering last season the knicks and bulls really weren't that far off in expectations ...but they are now ...the knicks will likely win their division while the bulls are more likely going to finish last in theirs 

the thing is paxson has not been patient of the 15 players he aquired he has only 3 eddy curry eddie robinson and chandler and all of them have been on the trading hot seat at one point or another since the season ended, thats 12 players gone in 15 months , thats pretty darn far from stability , and thats not counting that he reaquired brunson , to cut him again later , that he has already traded JYD whom he had aquired in a trade or LJ3 who was cut , resigned and then the spurs finally signed him away from the bulls, he(paxson) has very little direction and has made very questionable decisions


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It's all good mac

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

The big thing to keep in mind is that, except for a possible trade of Curry or Chandler, Pax has set his table. He's had two summers to set his team. If he can't get improve us this year and get us in the playoffs in 2005-2006, then (although I've seen enough that I don't like already), then I think it's VERY fair from any standard to suggest, he's fallen behind the measure of guys like Dumars and Kiki, and is running a lot closer to his running mate, MJ.

A longer-range and more subtle point is that when I mean the table is set, I think that (again, barring a favorable trade of Curry or Chandler), he has to do this with the guys he's brought. If he gets us into the 7th or 8th seed in 05-06 by making a short-sighted trade or FA signing, then it's a pretty hollow victory.

In short, there are two dimensions Pax has to be judged on. first, he has to win more, and second he has to win more while maintaining the possibility for adding a big piece in 06-07.

Dumars won 50 games after his 2nd summer, and Kiki won 43 after his second full summer in control. They got the right guys and improved. Simultaneously, they acquired an ace in the hole (for Dumars that turned out to be Rasheed Wallace and Darko Millic, for Kiki it appears to be Kenyon Martin).

Can Pax do that? I'm skeptical about the long-term "ace in the hole" plan (which appears to be 06 cap room). And I'm skeptical that we'll show the level of improvement that Kiki and Dumars showed, although I do think we'll post a record better than last year's. Like I said though, I more than hope I'm wrong


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I have really have no problem with Pax trying to do things his way because he deserves the right too.
> 
> What I have a problem with is all the people who make these excuses for him and hype his moves when 12 months later the expectations for this team are WORSE.


you certainly sound reasonable to me...maybe you shouldn't have got lumped in with the Bashers by me...you just quoted me, so i assumed you felt adressed. mike already yelled at me. sigh. I screwed up

on the being worse than last season?
that could happen, but this team needed to back up the truck if you believe the party line. I'm just one that does. And I agree with those that think he's looking good doing it. Nothing is etched in stone. They shouldn't be worse...but honestly, they won't be much better either. There is NO veteran leadership, on a team of Kids and rookies. They have no chance.....the thing to keep in mind is, that its not about this season, its about 2 more years...remember? no instant gratification







> I thought one of the main reasons behind his hiring was that he was around enought to know the team and to continue to build upon it without starting over but were right back to 3 more years


partly. He was probably hired to do just what he's done. You can't have all the answers from the radio booth, and he recognized that, and he deserves props for being openminded. Now he's seen enough.......and we were never making the kind of progress you think we were...there we just have to disagree. I think this team has been saved from a much much longer bad spell than they are now.




> You know that should be the Bulls boards slogan .
> 
> 3 more years ........
> 
> and then we just recycle it every year


we sure do :| 
The only thing we disagre on, is whats caused this, and the necessity of it


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> It's all good mac
> 
> -----------------------
> ...


Hopefully, Pax will do better. Pax has had a great run in the draft theoretically, and higher picks.
But realistically, MJ had a bad hand to play, just like Pax. And neither has had any reasonable amount of time to work. And MJ was distracted. I bet he'd do better as a pure GM without the dreams of playing....anyways



> A longer-range and more subtle point is that when I mean the table is set, I think that (again, barring a favorable trade of Curry or Chandler), he has to do this with the guys he's brought. If he gets us into the 7th or 8th seed in 05-06 by making a short-sighted trade or FA signing, then it's a pretty hollow victory


maybe. These guys are just so young though. Pax should find a way to boost them we hope, and i agree, he's responsible for that


> In short, there are two dimensions Pax has to be judged on. first, he has to win more, and second he has to win more while maintaining the possibility for adding a big piece in 06-07.


 true, but this season is toast. They have no chance


> Can Pax do that? I'm skeptical about the long-term "ace in the hole" plan (which appears to be 06 cap room). And I'm skeptical that we'll show the level of improvement that Kiki and Dumars showed, although I do think we'll post a record better than last year's. Like I said though, I more than hope I'm wrong


unless one or two of the bigs wants to claim the money.
Can we say that Joe D did a great Job. umm sure. the champs. He's the best

In your expectations, there still needs to be some recognition of the cap hell, less than marketable trade materials, and possible draft busts this BUlls team has had, as well as not being lucky in the draft in general. To put time consrtaints on the development of these players is not as important as if Pax made the right calls on drafting them period. If they make progress to the ultimate goal, year by year, thats reasonable to me.

i can't get over the harsh standards we set around here. Nobody rebuilds from ruins in the NBA overnight. Or its way rare. Its tough man, even if you do a decent, competant job :rbanana:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Hey, lorgg...what possessed you to start this thread in the first place? Didn't you know how it would turn out? SOS you'll hear whenever the opportunity presents itself. Most of this stuff isn't even fresh...just regurgitated. 
:hurl:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This team WAS a team on the rise. Then Krause resigned, Pax took over, Rose came to camp with a messed up hand that was never diagnosed, Curry was out of shape, and instead of making the "no brainer" signing of James Posey who the Bulls easily could have gotten Pax signed a beaten down Pippen. Instead of adding a small forward in the draft Pax drafted Hinrich who, while a talented young player, played a position that we already had filled. We started the season losing because of THOSE factors, not because we weren't a team primed to rise. These are all issues that SHOULD have been non issues because Pax should have had his finger on the pulse of the Bulls all offseason. He should have known if Curry wasn't working out and was out of shape, how did Jalen's hand get missed by all the Bulls training staff? The Raptors still managed to pick it up quick enough. These are all simple truths. Either you can see the truths that are evident, or, you can assume that because our record was poor that our team was poor and that a trade had to be made. Of course, trading Marshall & Rose for AD & JYD didn't really help our win total any did it? 

IMO, the "reactionaries" are the same people who clamored for a trade of Artest & Miller, the same folks who wanted Hassell cut to make room for Linton, the same people who wanted to let Hoiberg walk as a free agent, the same folks who for some mysterious reason think trading Rose/Marshall for AD & JYD was a stroke of genius, the same people who think bringing in the NBDL all stars was a stroke of genius, the same people who think that letting Crawford go for expiring contracts was a brilliant thing to do. THESE are the reactionaries. The people who are upset that the Bulls can't field a competetitve team because of all of their own ineptitude and constant tinkering are called something else....insightful.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

happygrinch, you made a couple of nice posts in this thread. I may not agree with 100% of what you said, but your history and the way you communicated your views was a nice read. 

Everyone should know where I stand on this. I am willing to give pax time. I mean after all, we gave JK five years. 

Has John made mistakes? Of course but so does every GM. 

Mikedc, we will not win 50 games like the pistons did in the second season under Dumars, but I will be happy if we are in the thirtys. 30 plus wins and salary room next season looks good to me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Paxson is in a lose/lose situation. If he gets into office and plays all of his cards right away, people bash him for not being patient. If he waits on the right deals, people bash him for not making immediate impact.


Paxson wasn't patient. He demanded playoffs his first season. He bailed on his coach and the team's best two players less than 1/4th into the season.

And has grinch pointed out, it's not that I (with the fire pax club in his signature) want to dislike Paxson, it's the proof in the pudding, so to speak. I, for one, happen to be sick of starting new rebuilding programs as the team looks like it's starting to gel and make progress.

And, I still want to hear these words from my GM, no matter who it is (Paxson included): "Whatever it takes to win."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> And, I still want to hear these words from my GM, no matter who it is (Paxson included): "Whatever it takes to win."


How is that motto much different than "No excuses?"


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson wasn't patient. He demanded playoffs his first season. He bailed on his coach and the team's best two players less than 1/4th into the season.
> ...


So if Paxson turns it around this season or the next.... can we fire you?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> How is that motto much different than "No excuses?"


Since Isaiah was mentioned, he isn't trading away his superstars for bums, and he did acquire at last one superstar in Marbury.

"No excuses" means "we better win with what we have" more than it demonstrates that the team will go out and score the best possible team to win immediately.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> So if Paxson turns it around this season or the next.... can we fire you?


You'll probably get more members in the Fire DaBullz club than you did in the Fire Jay Hillock club ;-)


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You'll probably get more members in the Fire DaBullz club than you did in the Fire Jay Hillock club ;-)


:laugh: Hey I had one loyal member and one half-member. BennyTheBull signed up outright and PC Load Letter joined but his admission letter was somehow lost in the mail (or so he said).

Your humor is improving DaBullz. Either that, or my standards are lowering!! :laugh: :grinning:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Cashius Clay defeats Sonny Liston.

How's that for an observation? (Your avatar)


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

DaBullz, if the Bulls come back and win 40 games this season, what will you think of Paxson then?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> DaBullz, if the Bulls come back and win 40 games this season, what will you think of Paxson then?


I'll still think he made a lot of bad moves, and that the draft has been the only thing he's really done well.

If the Bulls don't win 40? Hmmmm?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson wasn't patient. He demanded playoffs his first season. He bailed on his coach and the team's best two players less than 1/4th into the season.
> ...


Pax did that so he could justify cleaning house. Whic he did..Rose and Cartwright.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson wasn't patient. He demanded playoffs his first season. He bailed on his coach and the team's best two players less than 1/4th into the season.
> ...


Depending on which side of the fence you're on, you could call Paxson impatient, or you could call him decisive.

Yes, Paxson believed, as most of us also believed, that the Bulls would challenge for a playoff spot last season. But the team started the season 4-12. And what was worse, internally the team was rife with strife. Cartwright's decisions were being openly, and some might say disrespectfully criticized in the press by some his own players. The public doesn't have access to the locker room or the practice court so we don't know how problematic or out of control the bickering had become. Had Cartwright lost control? Was Rose truly becoming a cancer? Paxson never spoke publicly to those issues so the only version of the story that was heard was what certain players took to the press.

Some say that the team's slow start was in part attributed to Rose's hand injury. Well, I have to believe that if your $13 million dollar a year player is hurt you're going to look after your investment and do whatever it takes to get him well. Rose never missed any time. In fact, while he was still a member of the Bulls he had games in which he scored 34, 25, 20, and 19 points. That's pretty good for a guy with an injured shooting hand. Furthermore, the Raptors didn't seem concerned with his hand injury either. Not only did they trade for a max contract player, bad hand and all, they immediately played him more than 40mpg.

I'm not questioning whether or not he actually had a hand injury. Obviously something was wrong because he ended up having hand surgery in February which caused him to miss 16 games. But players go through stretches with bad hands or injured fingers all the time. How many times has Ron Artest taken the court _without_ one or more of the fingers on his shooting hand wrapped up? Since the Raptors played him over 40mpg for 2 1/2 months immediately following the trade I can only conclude that like the Bulls they probably had Rose's hand examined and determined that the injury wasn't significant. For all we know he may have re-injured in in February which brought on the need for surgery.

The point I'm trying to make is that after high expectations that were shared by management, players and fans alike, the team got off to a horrible start. And rather than take a circle the wagons approach, players began to ridicule their own coach's decisions and complain openly about their status as starters or support players. And as we later discovered from both Rose and Marshall themselves (when they admitted they had trouble making it through a single Raptor practice), the entire team had not been prepared physically to play the season at the highest level possible.

With all this in mind, and probably for more reasons that we'll never hear about, Paxson felt that changes needed to be made for the long term good of the organization in general and for the benefit of the young players the team was counting on in particular. Crawford needed an extended opportunity to show everyone what he was capable of doing. Curry needed someone who would demand excellence from him.

With all respect, you can describe Paxson's December decisions as the acts of an impatient man. But upon reflection, after five seasons of being viewed as the laughing stock of the entire league, how much more patient should he have been? Maybe he did the right thing. Maybe he didn't. Would the Bulls have turned it around last season and made a rush into the playoffs? I think most fans would agree that although anything's possible, the likelihood of the Bulls participating in the '04 playoffs was miniscule.

I'm not condoning Paxson's decisions. I'm also not going to condemn them either. And I'm not going to single out any one transaction and use it exclusively as a barometer of his competency as an NBA GM. Just as it would be unfair to call him a flop because of the Pippen signing, it would be equally unfair to nominate him for Executive of the Year honors because he selected Kirk Hinrich in the '03 draft. It's much to early to conclude if overall, he's got the team pointed in the right direction.

We've endured five seasons worth of the Jerry Krause rebuilding program, and most fans have been unbelievably patient. Paxson's been on the job for 16 months. He doesn't deserve, nor does he expect fans to exercise patience for another half decade. But he also shouldn't be hung in effigy after one season in charge. I think that fairness demands that he be given more time than that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Depending on which side of the fence you're on, you could call Paxson impatient, or you could call him decisive.
> ...


i dont think its fair to say krause's and paxson's rebuilding efforts are the same.

for one JK's rebuilding efforts were always pretty reasonable , he decided at 1st to get a good pick and try to sign 2 max FA's , it wasn't a bad idea but it didn't work as well as it could have , even then i couldn't call it a complete failure because he did get a future all star that summer in brad miller (it would be nice if we staill had him) brand was a good pick but he was 1st in the draft so he had have better been.

that didn't work but the team had more pieces than before (it also garnered 6 picks some of whom i would love to have in a bulls jersey right now) but like i said it was seen as a failure and with good reason at the time . 

the 2000-2001 season was a wash because miller was out of shape and mercer while scoring a nice amount was still mercer and they only won 15 games

the next rebuilding effort was centered around curry and chandler (who was aquired in a trade of brand) it was a 3-5 year project and i assumed everyone knew it then ...although they seemed to have forgotten it by now, that summer they also aquired eddie robinson for an avg. of 6 mil. a year instead of putting in 13 mil. for antonio davis , offering him what was left after giving that sum for robinson which would have given him 8 mil.....davis refused and got 13 mil. a year from tor.

krause's new goal was simple get 2 big players and build around them and within a seasons time he had a pretty good core around curry and chandler , with donyell , crawford, jay will, rose , hassell , and hoiberg. robinson really hasn't panned out .

outside of developing the youngsters the only real thing set forth for the bulls to accomplish under krause was to win 30 games in 2002-03 which did happen if only barely.

paxson is different he 1st decided to basically augment what had already been done which is why he went after hardworking graybeards in pippen and gill , 2 players known for their defense and work ethic, but all the while he contributed to the turmoil of the team , the rumors to trade either jay (until he got hurt) or jamal , doesn't help the atmosphere , krause would shoot down these rumors fairly regularly , in fact there was some speculation that he if anything will hold onto his picks too long at the time of his leaving as a reason it was good for him to go. Something that has not proven to be the case.

paxson has turned over the roster leaving only curry, chandler and robinson from the team he aquired less than a year and a half ago. what he has gotten for this is matter for concern. but the main thing is the reasons for this . he basically into last season torpedoed the team by canning the coach and changing the team up knowing full well at the time skiles was going to coach his way which meant a whole new sys. in place, without benefit of training camp, he also decided it would be best to put the team in the hands of JC and EC despite the fact eddy was out of shape .

in hindsight it very hard to believe he did not know eddy was out of shape at the time and also did this to cause a very bad season, considering it was 4-12 at the time what chance with all this against them did they really have to save their season? the answer is none but paxson has repeatedly blamed the year not on his decision to do something that was rash(for panicking at the poor start) at the least and egomanical at its worse(for taking the opportunity to building the team in his vision when he just could have been honest about it months earlier that it was what he wanted to do , it would have gotten him a far better trade for rose and the team wouldn't have had to basically start over in dec.) , but to blame the players for not instantly overcoming the hand he as GM dealt them, i cant think of one team who had a similar circumstance that has ever rebounded the way paxson seemed to expect them to. it was unfair and unreasonable.

he cries poverty at the thought of giving his leading scorer a half mil. over the MLE despite the fact that the bulls make over 50 mil. a season , which to any educated fan is pure lunacy, and he does it for cap space he wont spend on anyone new , for one he is looking to 2006 and for another that money will likely be eaten up by chandlers and curry's new deals anyway ...if they are retained.

they called krause the sleuth because of his secretive ways but he was always honest with his goals to the fans , paxson isn't , and if my team is going to mislead me they had better prove its worth it , and paxson has not. he has not come close to this .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i dont think its fair to say krause's and paxson's rebuilding efforts are the same.
> ...


Good post Grinch, nice summation of events.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i dont think its fair to say krause's and paxson's rebuilding efforts are the same.
> 
> for one JK's rebuilding efforts were always pretty reasonable , he decided at 1st to get a good pick and try to sign 2 max FA's , it wasn't a bad idea but it didn't work as well as it could have , even then i couldn't call it a complete failure because he did get a future all star that summer in brad miller (it would be nice if we staill had him) brand was a good pick but he was 1st in the draft so he had have better been.


I would call it a complete failure. Krause ended up trading away Miller in a miserable trade so how much credit do you want to give him for signing him.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> that didn't work but the team had more pieces than before (it also garnered 6 picks some of whom i would love to have in a bulls jersey right now) but like i said it was seen as a failure and with good reason at the time .


Please. The 2000 draft was a disaster. No one forced Krause to trade some many of his assets like Kukoc to get picks in this terrible draft year.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the 2000-2001 season was a wash because miller was out of shape and mercer while scoring a nice amount was still mercer and they only won 15 games



So Brand was out of shape as a Bull, Miller was out of shape for a year, Rose and Marshall found out they were out of shape when they ended up in Toronto.

Gee, so it's not Krause's fault if his team was always out of shape.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the next rebuilding effort was centered around curry and chandler (who was aquired in a trade of brand) it was a 3-5 year project and i assumed everyone knew it then although they seemed to have forgotten it by now,


It was the complete failure to surround Chandler and Curry with talented, hardworking vets that I have a problem with.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> that summer they also aquired eddie robinson for an avg. of 6 mil. a year instead of putting in 13 mil. for antonio davis , offering him what was left after giving that sum for robinson which would have given him 8 mil.....davis refused and got 13 mil. a year from tor.


News flash.... There were plenty of other players to invest that money into. It wasn't like AD and eRob were the only 2 games in town.

Spin it anyway you want, Krause was a dismal failure. He gutted the team to be a cap player and filled it up with the contracts of eRob and Rose. What a disaster.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

One thing people forget is that Paxson was an announcer and travelled with the team while Krause and Cartwright were running the show. It's not like he had to study game films to catch up on what the Bulls were about.

Grinch makes a terrific point about Pax's decisiveness. If he DECIDED to can Cartwright, he should have done it in time for Skiles to have a training camp.

What Kismet misses is that you can panic and be decisive at the same time. Panic can (and may not as well) cause POOR DECISIONS (decisiveness).

* Rose showed up for training camp with his hand in a cast. Maybe nobody noticed and told Pax about it, but I doubt that. He missed the whole training camp and didn't get in 1 minute of court time. 

* Hinrich had a virus and lost a bunch of weight and wasn't able to begin to fill the loss of JWill. He missed the first six games and wasn't in playing shape, in spite of big (25) minutes by the time he was first inserted in the lineup. And then he made his share of rookie mistakes, dooming the team to losses by being turnover prone early on.

* Chandler was hurt. He missed the first game, then played 5 and then missed the next 4 before playing a few games and then going on IR. When he did play, we all voted him the Bulls' best player. 

* Pip didn't play or practice in training camp either. He was so counted on to be a major contributor, yet Cartwright had to let him play his way into shape during game situations and being unfamiliar with teammates.

* Crawford? Puleeeze. WITH ROSE, he came out of the gate with games of 12, 7, 17, 19, 29, 19, and 14 points. He also averaged over 5 APG for those first games. He had EVERY opportunity to show off his stuff, as the Bulls put the ball in his hands almost exclusively as the PG (with Hinrich out) and with guys like Rose and Marshall to take the open 3 instead of Linton Johnson or AD (for that not-so-sweet 17 footer).

* Curry. Out of shape? He scored 20+ points in 3 of his first 8 games, and then scored 20 just once until mid-January. So much for "no excuses." Yet the guy hadn't even proven he could be a regular player in the NBA the previous year, as Chandler started at C over him in about 60 games.

* Replacing Hassell with Gill forced Cartwright to play Gill out of position at SF. Not the best of moves.

The Bulls were 4-10 when Cartwright was fired. They were 4-10 the season before and ended up winning 30. All this on top of 3/5 of the lineup being unproven NBA regulars and having to play the toughest teams in the league for many games in a row on the road (circus trip). Panic? You decide.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The Bulls were 4-10 when Cartwright was fired. They were 4-10 the season before and ended up winning 30. All this on top of 3/5 of the lineup being unproven NBA regulars and having to play the toughest teams in the league for many games in a row on the road (circus trip). Panic? You decide.


So I guess you miss Bill C, Rose and Crawford, huh?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> * Crawford? Puleeeze. WITH ROSE, he came out of the gate with games of 12, 7, 17, 19, 29, 19, and 14 points. He also averaged over 5 APG for those first games. He had EVERY opportunity to show off his stuff, as the Bulls put the ball in his hands almost exclusively as the PG (with Hinrich out) and with guys like Rose and Marshall to take the open 3 instead of Linton Johnson or AD (for that not-so-sweet 17 footer).


That's some nice revisionist history, DaBullz. At the time, you were saying to the point of utter redundancy that a team with Jamal Crawford as its starting PG gets blown out. You're acting now as if the team played OK but was just getting used to each other. Go back and read the game threads from those first few weeks and the threads surrounding them. We weren't just losing close games to good teams, we were getting destroyed, often on our home floor, and against teams like the Wizards. The team as it was composed was proving to be a bunch of bickering quitters. And you were at the forefront in your disgust, especially towards Crawford. The team wasn't playing or acting like they just needed a little time to get comfortable. They were acting like they needed a divorce. People bring up the heat as an example of patience paying off. But that team didn't have anywhere near the turmoil or strife that this team had. The team was a freakin soap opera. Everyone was questioning Cartwright. And he deserved it, playing Baxter ahead of Marshall, establishing absolutely no consistency in his rotations, etc. Rose and Crawford acted like 8-year-olds who had their blankie taken away when they were removed from the starting lineup temporarily. Curry was sloth-like, even if he managed to get to 20 points a handful of times (was it garbage time?). 

Did Paxson make the moves he made too quickly? Maybe - certainly the results post-trade left a lot to be desired. Was there a very strong impetus there for him to make moves? YES! And that's where the revisionist history comes in. This team WAS a mess when we made the trade. Just look back at our threads from the time. It seemed to me like almost everyone on the boards was bemoaning the team's utter lack of cohesion, pride, fight, and dignity. Did Pax get enough back in that trade? No, but not because of Rose, who I do not miss. He "threw in" Marshall, who would have been a godsend for the team on offense if we'd kept him. Maybe Pax did panic, if you must insist. But if he was, so was the Chicago media, everyone on this board, the rgm board, the national media was laughing at us yet again...I think a lot of us would have made some sort of move to shake up the team if we'd been in the position Pax was in as a first-year GM who thought he was simply tweaking a rising team with playoff hopes.

ok. rant over.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> That's some nice revisionist history, DaBullz. At the time, you were saying to the point of utter redundancy that a team with Jamal Crawford as its starting PG gets blown out. You're acting now as if the team played OK but was just getting used to each other. Go back and read the game threads from those first few weeks and the threads surrounding them. We weren't just losing close games to good teams, we were getting destroyed, often on our home floor, and against teams like the Wizards. The team as it was composed was proving to be a bunch of bickering quitters. And you were at the forefront in your disgust, especially towards Crawford.


I stand by what I said about Crawford. As a PG, I feel he was largely responsible for us getting blown out like we were. I remember he'd run the team OK during the 1st half of games, we'd be down by a few points, but not out of it at half, and then Jamal would come out throwing up shots and getting away from the offense.

For example, we lost 98-68 to Milwaukee in game 3 (we were 1-1 at the time) after leading 43-42 at half. Or down 53-44 at half to Philly, we end up losing by 21.

But that's a very different issue than "Jamal needed the opportunity to prove what he could do, so Rose had to go."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

fair enough. I still get the feeling that the Pax critics overstate the "panic" case in regards to that trade, and to some extent, conveniently forget just how much of a farce that team was playing and acting like. I agree that we got the worse end of the deal, but not by as much as some would say. I also agree that maybe he pulled the trigger a little too soon, but I reject the notion that he pulled the plug on a promising young team. The only promise that team held was that they were going to lose and quit.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said about Crawford. As a PG, I feel he was largely responsible for us getting blown out like we were. I remember he'd run the team OK during the 1st half of games, we'd be down by a few points, but not out of it at half, and then Jamal would come out throwing up shots and getting away from the offense.
> ...


Well, since JC didn't get it done as a PG, then Pax needed to see what he could do as a scorer from the SG slot.

And he did need to trade Rose to see how JC worked out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, since JC didn't get it done as a PG, then Pax needed to see what he could do as a scorer from the SG slot.
> ...


What's more fair to say is that both Rose and now Crawford were moved so Hinrich wouldn't have to beat anyone out for a starting job.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> What's more fair to say is that both Rose and now Crawford were moved so Hinrich wouldn't have to beat anyone out for a starting job.


And then that damn John Paxson goes ahead and drafts two more guys who can play the point in Ben Gordon and Chris Duhon. Go figure!

BTW, anyone think Hinrich will treat Gordon's and Duhon's selections as a vote of no confidence the way Mr. Crawford did when Williams and Kirk were chosen? Don't hold your breath. Hinrich is cut from a different cloth.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> And then that damn John Paxson goes ahead and drafts two more guys who can play the point in Ben Gordon and Chris Duhon. Go figure!
> ...


I love the pick of Gordon. Too bad he's not going to be the starting PG alongside someone like Rose or Crawford.

It's going to be a long season if Hinrich shoots under 40% again.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> And then that damn John Paxson goes ahead and drafts two more guys who can play the point in Ben Gordon and Chris Duhon. Go figure!
> ...


But then again Pax has left no doubt who his guy is by trading away all the competition.

JK said Jay and Jamal could play together and BC said they couldnt .What do you think happens if Skiles says Gordon is a Pg and he and Hinrich see any time in the backcourt together becauses he felt he was gonna go with the newly acquired Griffith even when both of them proved to be better than this guy ?


As for Jamal and the start of the season this team routinely shot under 40% from the field and at one point was shooting under 30%.  

Kirk missed the first 5 games and Jamal was actually the only player on the team whose shot was falling so now who here thinks that even if Kirk was healthy the first 5 games that BC moves Jamal to sg at times to utilize his offense .I dont think it happens .


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I love the pick of Gordon. Too bad he's not going to be the starting PG alongside someone like Rose or Crawford.
> ...


I agree with your feelings about Gordon as the Bulls selection. As for Hinrich, you're right again about how important it will be for him to improve his shooting percentage. 

Actually, as the season progresses and players like Gordon, Nocioni and Deng learn how to score in the NBA, and if players like Piatkowski, Chandler and Curry meet whatever offensive expectations are set for them, Hinrich will probably shoot less than he did last year.

Long term I expect this team to evolve into one with real offensive balance and scoring threats at every position. And if Curry's able to produce at the very start of the season, Skiles will be able to run his "inside/out" sets and that should free up perimeter shooters like Hinrich for better looks.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> JK said Jay and Jamal could play together and BC said they couldnt .What do you think happens if Skiles says Gordon is a Pg and he and Hinrich see any time in the backcourt together becauses he felt he was gonna go with the newly acquired Griffith even when both of them proved to be better than this guy ?


Pax and Skiles appear to be much more of a cooperative partnership than Krause ever was with his coaches. I don't see this happening. I could see Griffin starting the season as a starter for us because of his size and defensive ability, but I don't think there will be a complete reluctance to put Gordon and Hinrich on the floor at the same time. If that was going to be an issue, I don't think Pax would have drafted Gordon.

Skiles is much less flexible than Cartwright in terms of how the players conduct themselves in a professional sense, but I think in terms of managing his personnel on the floor he's been more flexible. We're going to find out this year now that there are some versatile players on the roster.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

I don't know if I'd view Griff as a starter...the Bulls will need to generate points from the SG position. What I do see initially however, once this deal gets done, is real competition at all five positions. No more entitlement minutes for anyone. And no more sacrificing wins to make a point.

All the real talent lies with the young guys. However, if any one of them isn't fullfilling Skiles expectations on a given night, this time there are proven vets and not NBDL'ers ready to step in. What a _huge_ step forward that is from last year.

However, I just don't see any of the young players presenting any attitude problems based on what we know about them. But it's nice to know that just in case...

Eventually as the season wears on, just as cream rises to the top, the talent that players like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Chandler and Curry are blessed with combined with hard work and perseverance should make it easy to define your prime-time players from your supporting cast. At least I presume that's the plan.

With the completion of the Houston trade, it looks like Pax will have done a pretty good job of finding veterans who will accept their roles as support players to the young guys the franchise is counting on to move them forward into a brighter future. Skiles won't have to deal with veteran jealousy or worry about players who may have their own personal agendas that might conflict with team goals.

I know this team will still lose more games than it wins this season. The joy for me will come in watching the young players get better and better. And as they learn more about each other perhaps we may even be treated to a few upsets along the way. I accept the fact that the playoffs are probably out of the question this season. But what would please me to no end would be to hear the basketball pundits start to describe the Bulls as a team no one wants to play because they know they're in for a battle and because as the season proceeds the team starts to turn defeat into victory on a more frequent basis. I'll be happy with that for this season. The next season (05/06) I want to be knocking on .500 and a solid playoff birth. And from that point on we'd better be legitimate contenders.


----------

