# Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is (articles merged)



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

GM won't jump to correct team's slump 



> Anyone who expects the Bulls to make a trade to solve the team's glaring inadequacies is in for a long wait.
> 
> Bulls general manager John Paxson said Thursday he doesn't believe the answers rest with a trade.
> 
> ...


There's more there on today's practice.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



> "To react short-term and give up something that can benefit us in the future would just be foolish to me," Paxson said. "*If there's a deal to be made that could help us, not only now but long range, I'll do it*.


^^


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

Isn't being competitive this year and not getting embarrassed on a nightly basis important in the long term, too?

Is "effort" going to make Mike Sweetney or Andres Nocioni taller?

Is "effort" going to make Hinrich, Duhon, or Gordon break life-long habits and become guys who attack the basket, draw fouls, and create for others?

Is "effort" going to make Tyson Chandler's hands stickier and bigger?

I don't see it. And I don't understand how on the one hand Paxson freely admits that his team doesn't have the talent to compete with good teams, then on the other staunchly refuses to do much about it.

If he sticks to his word, we're in the lottery, and without much last-minute suspense.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

i want to know who, besides gordon apparently, has an "agenda" that is steering them away from the team concept.

color me disconcerted.


----------



## KH12 (Dec 30, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

Pax is in a tough spot. We have so many young players who aren't making that much money it is hard to trade for a "star" because the salaries have to match. Tim Thomas should be the first to go and you have to believe that some team out there is willing to take on his contract for the remainder of the year just to clear some cap room. Package the Knicks pick and Gordon and get a good proven player. Paul Pierce would look good in red and black.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



KH12 said:


> Pax is in a tough spot. We have so many young players who aren't making that much money it is hard to trade for a "star" because the salaries have to match. Tim Thomas should be the first to go and you have to believe that some team out there is willing to take on his contract for the remainder of the year just to clear some cap room. Package the Knicks pick and Gordon and get a good proven player. Paul Pierce would look good in red and black.


welcome!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



mizenkay said:


> i want to know who, besides gordon apparently, has an "agenda" that is steering them away from the team concept.
> 
> color me disconcerted.


No freakin kidding. 

My questions for Pax:
1. Don't you need an actual team (meaning a legit mix of players) to play "team basketball"?
2. If you don't have that (hint: you don't), how can you blame guys for overcompensating?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



Mikedc said:


> No freakin kidding.
> 
> My questions for Pax:
> 1. Don't you need an actual team (meaning a legit mix of players) to play "team basketball"?
> 2. If you don't have that (hint: you don't), *how can you blame guys for overcompensating?*



exactly.

and then to say you're not going to do anything about it.

geez.

wait, i think i saw a light go on in the frankenstein castle.




:angel:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



Mikedc said:


> No freakin kidding.
> 
> My questions for Pax:
> 1. Don't you need an actual team (meaning a legit mix of players) to play "team basketball"?
> 2. If you don't have that (hint: you don't), how can you blame guys for overcompensating?


Pax is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Admit you don't have the horses or point to something that can be improved. Pax is going with the later . Not too convincingly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



johnston797 said:


> Pax is caught between a rock and a hard place.
> 
> Admit you don't have the horses or point to something that can be improved. Pax is going with the later . Not too convincingly.


To me it seems like he admitted he doesn't have the horses but then went ahead and threw his guys in front of the buss anyway with unnecessary talk about how they're "role players" and spawning "agendas".

No wonder they look demoralized scared and confused. I'd be pretty ****ing confused too if my boss said I wasn't good enough to fill more than a specific role and criticized me for trying to do too much while he simultaneously acknowledged he hadn't filled the other roles needed to accomplish the task at hand.

How about a little bit of honesty here Pax. You made a choice to **** up the mix of this team in the short-run. Maybe it'll pan out in the long-run, but in the meantime it's you're players on the court that have to try and pick up the slack. Calling them out ain't gonna get it done.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

Honestly, Paxson didn't really say anything that I disagree with, but........I'm not sure that coming out and saying stuff about how people in the locker room have agendas is a productive endeavor. Too much disclosure IMO. Ditto for the 'we have a bunch of role players, and not enough talent' comment. I think it's true, but considering the mental state the team is in, it strikes me as being counter productive.

Everything else was alright with me. Just wish Pax would exercise a little more discretion with the media from time to time.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



> Package the Knicks pick and Gordon and get a good proven player. Paul Pierce would look good in red and black.


I'm even warming the idea of taking Randolph and Patterson for TT... and I don't think it would even take a pick to get it done, taking the "mistake" salary and the troublesome Patterson off their hands might be sufficient.
But I'm still thinking that one over.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



rosenthall said:


> Honestly, Paxson didn't really say anything that I disagree with, but........I'm not sure that coming out and saying stuff about how people in the locker room have agendas is a productive endeavor. Too much disclosure IMO. Ditto for the 'we have a bunch of role players, and not enough talent' comment. I think it's true, but considering the mental state the team is in, it strikes me as being counter productive.
> 
> Everything else was alright with me. Just wish Pax would exercise a little more discretion with the media from time to time.


Bingo.

With Skiles and Paxson (particularly Skiles) I often find myself thinking "well, I guess he's right, but why go and say that to a reporter?"


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



> Paxson said he has talked to a few teams about potential trades but hasn't found an attractive deal.
> 
> "To react short-term and give up something that can benefit us in the future would just be foolish to me," Paxson said. "If there's a deal to be made that could help us, not only now but long range, I'll do it.
> 
> *"There's nothing out there right now."*


This is important. We have a level-headed guy in Paxson that hasn't seen a deal that he likes for anyone on the roster. I wonder who he has talked to about "potential trades" and who those potential trades may have included.



> Asked if he could be confident of the Bulls becoming a playoff team if they raise their level of play, Paxson said: "I don't know. Your goal always has to be that. But *from Day One, we've recognized the [Eastern Conference] has gotten better, and we do not have the size and maybe the talent that some of these other teams do.*"


This is Paxson realizing the importance of AD and Curry being gone, I think.




> "I think most of these guys really want to win, but they're trying to do too much on their own thinking they can do it, and *we don't have those types of players. *
> 
> "I think they're out there trying to do too much instead of relying on the team concept and the things that have gotten them through."


At least, as is observable throughout the whole article, we know that Pax is looking for a star this time around. This is not going to be another trade for role players; this is going to be for a star. We don't have that type of player yet, "unfortunately", but we can trust that Paxson doesn't have the deals that we've been talking about, otherwise I think we'd have pulled the trade already.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



> but we can trust that Paxson doesn't have the deals that we've been talking about, otherwise I think we'd have pulled the trade already.


That and if the opportunity does come, it would be at the deadline, not so early on in the season. Eventhough its hard to be patient, we just have to be.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Struggles don’t shock Paxson*

The natural reaction to a five-game losing streak is to ask what’s wrong with the Bulls.

In many ways, though, the Bulls are right where they’re supposed to be this season.

Management suspected the Bulls would take a step back after the Eddy Curry trade left them with the league’s smallest lineup. But the deal has a chance to pay off in the long run because the Bulls will get New York’s top draft pick next year and should have at least $15 million to spend on free agents.

*“I will never backtrack,” general manager John Paxson said Thursday. “I knew what our issues were going to be. We’ve lost some games because of it.”*

Paxson also expected the Eastern Conference to be stronger this season, and it has been. Cleveland, Indiana, New Jersey and Milwaukee have all passed the Bulls in the standings.

After Wednesday’s 93-80 loss at Charlotte, the Bulls are 3-11 against teams that have a winning record and 9-5 against teams with a losing record.

*“Your goal always has to be (playoffs),” Paxson said. “But from Day One, we recognized that the East has gotten better and we do not have the size and maybe the talent some of these other teams do. You go down a lot of the rosters, you can probably point out a star on most teams. We don’t have one, unfortunately.*

*“Where we succeeded was by playing harder than everybody else and by the guys we really count on playing well.”
*....

Struggles don’t shock Paxson


fire away


----------



## windy_bull (Sep 28, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



Showtyme said:


> This is Paxson realizing the importance of AD and Curry being gone, I think.


well .. I don't think he has realized NOW that this trade has hurt the bulls a lot for this season ... I remember very well that he was quite pissed to be forced into this deal .... but still he took his responsibility for both ... the franchise AND eddy curry ... but eddy prefered to be responsible for himself ... which is understandable and respectable as well 

so bottomline is ... this team is not yet complete .... neither in terms of development of the current roster nor in terms of roster spots .... what I mean is that we are still one skilled big ( Aldridge ? ) and one slashing sg/sf ( carney/ brewer ? ) away from being a contending team ...

we have HAD a lot of patience and we still will NEED some patience ... so far I have not seen a single move by pax that has hurt the future of our franchise ... but I have seen him making the best out of the draft picks he had and I have seen trades that have given us a lot of flexibility for the future ,,,

as much as it hurts ... if we miss the playoffs our chances for attractive spots in the next draft improve ... so I take this situation as it is ... pax can't change it and we can't either ...

the only possible trade that I see helping us without hurting our future is:

TT + Noc for Pierce + our second pick in 2006

if this is not possible --- some more patience will do it !!!


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Hanley's take on the whole Paxson no trade thing*

Hanley also wrote an article on Paxson's statements, which has more detail than Garcia's, and abit different from McGraw:

Despite skid, Paxson not ready to become trader  





> "To react short-term and give up something that can benefit us in the future would just be foolish to me,'' said Paxson, who will have upward of $15 million in salary-cap room and two first-round picks this summer. *"I've talked to a few teams, I've listened, [and if] you don't like what you hear, you don't do anything. If there's a deal to make that will help us, not only to get better now but long-range, I'll do it. But there's nothing out there right now.*
> 
> *"We're all realistic that the free-agent market [next] year is not what it has been in the last years, but [the cap room] gives us flexibility. The one thing I won't do is take on a bad contract of an average player if we don't like him and we don't think he fits in with us long-term.* I'm going to keep our options open. Our guys are going to have to go out and earn a win.''


Duhon on the practice:


> After his team's second loss in eight days to the second-year Bobcats, Skiles said the Bulls' "overall team attitude'' concerned him even more than the losing.
> 
> "A lot of it has to do with our attitude,'' said guard Chris Duhon, one of the team's tri-captains. "We're definitely not satisfied with the way we're playing. It's just not acceptable. Coach said these next few days are going to determine your playing time, so guys came out and competed.
> 
> "That's what we need. We need that type of atmosphere where everyone feels that they have a chance to play. I'm not saying that we haven't had great practices before, but it was basically to let you know that enough is enough.''


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Jackson: Bulls battle baffling case of the blahs*



> What's wrong with the Bulls?
> 
> It's simple: They're losing games they should be winning, losing to teams they should be beating.
> 
> ...


And the end of the article:



> Also, the recent struggles might not be the worst thing for the overall building plan. If any of the team's building-block players is incapable of living up to expectations, it would be better to find out sooner than later.
> 
> After the loss in Charlotte, I asked Skiles if some of his players were putting too much pressure on themselves, because the team seemed especially tight.
> 
> ...



The rest is here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-jax301.html


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



mizenkay said:


> exactly.
> 
> and then to say you're not going to do anything about it.
> 
> ...


Funniest post here in a long time.

Just a couple seasons ago, there was talk of the peasants firing up their torches and heading down to the UC.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

jbulls made this post in the Tim Thomas thread, but it actually addresses much of the news articles, quotes, and so on, that have been posted this morning.



jbulls said:


> It's interesting that Paxson blamed the fact that Thomas was at a different place in his career than the rest of the team for his departure. I don't believe Paxson actually ever came right out and said that TT had a different "agenda" than the rest of the squad, but the implication was pretty obvious - only the truest of believers could fool themselves into thinking differently. Now we're racking up losses and what does Paxson blame? Player's agendas. I thought this team was full of pure-of-heart youngsters diving after loose balls and "hustling"...
> 
> The problem isn't that our GM has accrued of roster of dwarves or that our coach is throwing his players under the bus with alarming regularity - it's the player's agendas! I don't really care about Tim Thomas. He's not part of our long range plans, and he's not a good enough player to transform a struggling team into a good one. But the attitude of PaxSkiles towards their players is disturbing. To wit:
> 
> ...


 "We run have more plays for Gordon than any other team has for its players" (rough quote)

LOL

Run them in Q4 for once this season. It worked out pretty well last season.

There was a lot of talk this summer about how the team (e.g. Paxson) talked down the value of its players and got less in return for them than they should in trade. You reap what you sow. The players may not believe that if they play hard and win games that they're going to be financially rewarded. Really. 

How would you feel if you were 6th man of the year as a rookie, then led the team in scoring for a season or two, and then were told "go find another offer from another team and maybe I'll match it?"

I don't mean to pick on Gordon here, it is true for all the players. 

It sure does look like Paxson has poisoned his own well. Now he's compounding things with the stuff he's saying. While it's true the players don't look like they're playing with heart, but Pax has just now insulted every one of them:



> Asked if he could be confident of the Bulls becoming a playoff team if they raise their level of play, Paxson said: "I don't know. Your goal always has to be that. But from Day One, we've recognized the [Eastern Conference] has gotten better, and we do not have the size and maybe the talent that some of these other teams do.
> 
> "You go down a lot of the rosters—you can point out a star on teams. We don't have one unfortunately, but I have total confidence in the way [Bulls coach Scott Skiles] approaches these guys and how he deals with them.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... Some people laughed when I said the Bulls were a bunch of Duhons - well there's your precious GM saying the same thing (hint: Duhon IS a role player).

I wonder how any of you would feel if your boss at work called you in his office and told you that you were a role player. I know my loyalty to the company would suffer.

I am also rather shocked at Pax's statement about the players having an agenda.

Duh. Of course they do. It's your job, Pax, to align your agenda with theirs. They're not going to buy into the "Let's pay 'em rookie scale wages forever or trade 'em" GAME PLAN.

Funny how he's asked if this is a playoff team, he says "playoffs are a goal." I said it all last season and I'll continue saying it. Until our GM says "whatever it takes to win" in a sentence, I have no confidence he's trying to put an actual winning team on the court.

Hey folks, it's only a slight translation to say Pax just said the season's a wash. Bump that thread!

Which gets to this:




> Paxson said he has talked to a few teams about potential trades but hasn't found an attractive deal.
> 
> "To react short-term and give up something that can benefit us in the future would just be foolish to me," Paxson said. "If there's a deal to be made that could help us, not only now but long range, I'll do it.
> 
> "There's nothing out there right now."


Dude, make 'em an offer they can't refuse. Or something. Sheesh. When are you going to realize that there are other GMs out there besides Isaiah Thomas who might make you feel a little pain in a trade if you're going to make them feel a little pain. And surely, anyone who'd give up a Paul Pierce is going to feel a little pain.

Aren't you learning anything Pax, from watching all those teams in the east you say got better? How did they get better? What are YOU failing to do to keep up?

I'm ][ <--- this close to getting the "Fire Skiles" club back in my signature. He's done. The players have tuned him out.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

John Paxson is a freaking fantastic GM. Clearly the anti-Isiah Thomas. If half this board has their way, the Bulls would be looking a lot like the New York's right now.

Detroit and San Antonio didn't get their current rosters by trading every time the team went on a losing streak, or throwing money at random guys because they put up good stats. You stay the course and you're at worst Memphis, get a bit of luck (Knicks pick) and you're contenders in the near future. But never the Knickbockers.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

It's good to hear Paxson acknowledge the teams deficiencies. I wish he would have done so in a manner that was less condescending to our players. But at least he knows what areas need to be addressed. It isn't encouraging to hear that there aren't any trades out there worth looking at. Perhaps Boston just wants TOO much for Pierce (as in both picks). I don't want Paxson to make a knee jerk reaction just to salvage a playoff appearance this season as we aren't winning a title this year anyway. I would like to see SOME sort of move, even a small one, to add a little beef inside. Perhaps a deal with Ronto? A couple of Second! (edit) round picks for Pape Sow who is a legit 7'er assigned to the NBDl. He led the NBDL with 11.9rpg this season. I know he isn't going to be an NBA all star but he does have size and that could help us out alone right there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



Greg Ostertag! said:


> John Paxson is a freaking fantastic GM. Clearly the anti-Isiah Thomas. If half this board has their way, the Bulls would be looking a lot like the New York's right now.
> 
> Detroit and San Antonio didn't get their current rosters by trading every time the team went on a losing streak, or throwing money at random guys because they put up good stats. You stay the course and you're at worst Memphis, get a bit of luck (Knicks pick) and you're contenders in the near future. But never the Knickbockers.


:laugh:

I love the enthusiasm you have for Paxson.

But what in the world do San Antonio and Detroit have to do with our current predicament? And I think most of us are setting the bar a little higher than the Knicks. You do realize that the present Knicks are a raging success story compared to what we suffered from 1998-2004, the worst six-year record by any team in NBA history, right?

San Antonio lucked into one of the greatest big men in NBA history, and it had nothing to do with patience or not throwing money at random guys. Hell, the Spurs were so desperate to win while the Admiral was still effective that they did crazy things like make Jerry Tarkanian coach and bring in Dennis Rodman at the time he was doing things like sleeping in his pickup at the Palace parking lot with a shotgun in his lap. 

Then the Admiral got hurt for a season, the Spurs intentionally tanked, and lightning struck again. Since then, I'll grant you, they've done a marvelous job of keeping their financial house in order and reaping tons of talent at the back end of the draft. But it all revolves around Duncan, and getting him was pure, dumb, stupid luck.

And Detroit was anything BUT patient when Dumars took over the job and saw things weren't working. He traded a Hall-of-Fame guy who was thought to be in his prime -- Grant Hill. Unlike some of the trades the Bulls have made, though, they got back a pretty good asset in that dump. Same for the Stackhouse deal -- Dumars didn't give him away, he got back a honest-to-goodness basketball player just entering his prime. Then Dumars did another thing the Bulls would never do -- he picked up a guy of questionable character (but immense talent, and he got him for nothing). He signed a veteran point guard who had bounced around from team to team and never realized his potential, then helped to make that point blossom. Dumars also made a seemingly shocking decision to fire a coach coming off back-to-back 50-win seasons, then spent top dollar to bring in a legend to take them over the top. 

I give Paxson a ton of credit for picking the franchise up out of the gutter and getting the ship righted. But there's been a significant regression this year, and that's his lookout. The forthcoming draft and free agency period will define him, imo. What's he's put together RIGHT NOW doesn't amount to much.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

btw, it was me who merged all the articles into this thread since they are on the same "hot" topic.


hey, pax, in lieu of a trade or getting rid of timmy's agenda ridden ***, why don't you look into filling the empty roster spot? do we still have the Vet Min to spend? could someone clarify this? guy doesn't need to be a stud, and since we have no stars, what about another role player you could blame? i agree that you shouldn't shoot your wad, as it were, just for the sake of, oh, i don't know, making the playoffs two years in a row, and building on last season, but to say that it's just a matter of guys working harder, when, in most cases they're working their asses off, is just so unbelievably disingenuous. 



sorry guys, but miz is slowly approaching the dark side.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



> I would like to see SOME sort of move, even a small one, to add a little beef inside. Perhaps a deal with Ronto? A couple of first round picks for Pape Sow who is a legit 7'er assigned to the NBDl.


I'm going to take that as a misprint. 
One thing I do agree with Pax though, I wouldnt' bother moving for anyone unless its for someone substantial, otherwise the waiting game continues. Try our luck in the draft and then fill the void in FA, test it out for one year and then move on from there. Pierce would be a FA then (if he choses to not pick up his option), so it wouldn't take much to get him, not to mention if Houston doesn't get it together they may fall apart sooner than expected, plus countless other unforseen possibilities.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



step said:


> I'm going to take that as a misprint.
> One thing I do agree with Pax though, I wouldnt' bother moving for anyone unless its for someone substantial, otherwise the waiting game continues. Try our luck in the draft and then fill the void in FA, test it out for one year and then move on from there. Pierce would be a FA then (if he choses to not pick up his option), so it wouldn't take much to get him, not to mention if Houston doesn't get it together they may fall apart sooner than expected, plus countless other unforseen possibilities.



yeah that was DEFINITLEY a misprint, I meant a couple of second rounders and it has been edited.


----------



## Xantos (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*

Wow...reading that article makes me feel good. Jeez...what is Pax thinking about?? Trying to cover up the fact that this team is in touble? From the start you could see this team has lost something, and that they were short. You can't win in the NBA without a "decent" big guy in the middle. We don't have that in Sweetney [anymore]...I think his season is over. His body has done as much as it can. He needs to loose that weight. Tyson. Jesus, send him to the D League! 5 years, and no offensive game WHAT SO EVER. Ben Gordon has officially been labled, "Apple Turnover" by me. He get's in the game and turns it over 3 times [2 consecutivly]. I was sooooo pissed at that Charlotte game....How is it, a team of small gaurds can't handle a freaking 'press'!! They are suppose to be the best ball handlers and decission makers on the team.....What's even scarier...THe Bobcats played w/o Okafor, May, Rush, and Knight. .......God Help us....


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

What I find distressing is that Paxson did not do anything in the offseason to help the team. Many teams made significant moves to improve. Paxson stated, in effect, that he wanted to look at the team for another year to see who the keepers would be. The major move the Bulls made, i.e. the Curry trade, actually decreased the talent on the team. There will be no one in the next draft with the Bulls' picks who will be better than Curry within the next two years. And that includes the big guy from Texas even if the Bulls lucked out and got his rights with the Knicks' pick.

This may sound naive, but I don't find this strategy as very clever considering that teams have to continually improve to stay competitive. I think patience is important with a young team. But patience isn't going to make Kirk Hinrich grow another three inches. In my opinion, Paxson's stubborn belief that a small backcourt can win in the league is a core blunder. Another blunder was Paxson's belief that Chandler was a big-time player. Quite frankly, he has been outplayed by just about every center in the league. Until Paxson comes to terms with these facts, this team ain't going nowhere. 

I think the illusion that Pax is working under at this time is that the current players just have to work harder and "want it" more than they have shown. Without a doubt they can play better. However, without an infusion of talent things will not get any better. Nobody wants Pax to make a panic move. (The Rose trade to me was a classic panic move.) But what separates the good GMs from the poor ones is the ability to do deals knowing which players are moving up and which ones are going down in their careers. For example,the Rose deal again- but from Donnie Walsh's perspective. Pax just paying lip service to the obvious lack of talent on the team does not sit well with me. He should have taken responsibility for this lack of talent and made a promise to the fans that he will do whatever it takes to bring the talent in. 

There are a lot of players out there who can help this team. For example, there are several teams out there willing to take a gamble on Artest. Many of these GMs have track records far superior to Paxson. Yet, Pax (as far as we know) has closed the door on even talking about this. I'm just using this as one example. I guess my point is that if you hope to do well in this league you can't restrict your universe to just perceived good-jib players. Yes, we have talked a lot about this on this board. But I think good-jib is relative. IMO even Michael Jordan would not be considered a good-jib player by control freaks like Skiles. Phil Jackson had the personality to handle guys like Jordan and Rodman. I am not saying to dump Skiles. All that I am saying at this point is that you have to work very hard and be very good to find players that work well in this type of environment. And from my vantage point I am not seeing Paxson working particulary hard doing this.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There's a business concept I like to call "time compression." If you are making a widget and selling them as fast as you can make them, you buy another widget machine and make 2x as many and have 2x the sales. This is "time compression" because you could still get 2x the sales in 2x the time the old way.

Paxson applied "time compression" to the Bulls before last season. He traded the next season's draft pick for an addtional one for the current draft and got Deng for it. The results showed up in the team on the floor.

Time compression works with things like expiring contracts. You get Cap Space next season when TT's contract expires. Or you can traded it NOW for a player you'd want when TT's contract expires anyhow.

I do not think that Paxson is dumb. And cap flexibility is only useful is you use it for something.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

We need more cowbell.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

oh yeah.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> oh yeah.



Who's in your avatar?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Vintage said:


> Who's in your avatar?



italian supermodel mariacarla boscono.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

aka Will Ferrell.

As fpr Pax "standing pat", I don't know if I agree with that sentiment. While Pax doesn't wan't to be fleeced, I think that if there is a good trade out there, he should explore it. I think Paul Pierce could be had for the right price and we have the pieces to make it work, as long as Boston doesn't ask for too much. As far as I'm concerned, only Deng and Chandler(because of his contract) are untouchable.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> aka Will Ferrell.
> 
> As fpr Pax "standing pat", I don't know if I agree with that sentiment. While Pax doesn't wan't to be fleeced, I think that if there is a good trade out there, he should explore it. I think Paul Pierce could be had for the right price and we have the pieces to make it work, as long as Boston doesn't ask for too much. As far as I'm concerned, only Deng and Chandler(because of his contract) are untouchable.



LOL, I was talking about her avatar (the picture below her name).

I know who Will Ferrell is (in the animated clip). Obviously, my cowbell reference comes from the Ferrell skit on SNL


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> As fpr Pax "standing pat", I don't know if I agree with that sentiment. While Pax doesn't wan't to be fleeced, I think that if there is a good trade out there, he should explore it. I think Paul Pierce could be had for the right price and we have the pieces to make it work, as long as Boston doesn't ask for too much. As far as I'm concerned, only Deng and Chandler(because of his contract) are untouchable.


I agree in that "standing pat" is not the solution, thus I think Pax's statement is not very accurate. I also think it's unfair to say to an undermanned ballclub "play harder". Ultimately, we've all noticed that we have a VERY weak frontcourt. It shouldn't take a lot for our opponents to see the same thing. Right now our entire PF/C corps of Chandler, Sweetney, O'Fella, Songaila, and Allen are giving us an average of only 30 points per game. That's just not the ticket to winning basketball.

Unfortunately for Pax, "standing pat" is NOT the solution -- short term -- but is still very likely the best answer -- long term. The team needs to sit down and realize that they are undermanned, and make sure that every player is willing to accept that and still play within a system that will allow for individual and team development without resorting to back-biting and feuding.

Unfortunately, "hard work" is ultimately also not the solution -- short term.

We need to realize that there is not a short term solution, stop the backbiting within the organization, and use our assetts (picks, cap space, expiring salaries, etc.) to our advantage as we look forward to next season. The rest of this season needs to be about winning as many games as we can, but also about addressing individual shortcomings that will help make this ballclub better.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



ScottMay said:


> And Detroit was anything BUT patient when Dumars took over the job and saw things weren't working. He traded a Hall-of-Fame guy who was thought to be in his prime -- Grant Hill.


I think that really isn't an accurate description of what happened. As I remember it, Hill told the team he was going to Orlando, and Dumar did the sign and trade so as to not end up with nothing, and as dumb luck would have it, they ended up getting a cornerstone for a championship team. I did a search on it, and it was kinda hard to find something from 2000, but Wikipedia agrees with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Pistons#2000s

"After Hill indicated his intentions to leave for Orlando, Dumars dealt him to the Magic in return for a pair of largely unheral"ded players, Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins."


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Oh, and in regards to the article Pax really needs to stop talking to the media so much, pr at least learn to be a bit less...honest when he does.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



Babble-On said:


> I think that really isn't an accurate description of what happened. As I remember it, Hill told the team he was going to Orlando, and Dumar did the sign and trade so as to not end up with nothing, and as dumb luck would have it, they ended up getting a cornerstone for a championship team. I did a search on it, and it was kinda hard to find something from 2000, but Wikipedia agrees with me:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Pistons#2000s
> 
> "After Hill indicated his intentions to leave for Orlando, Dumars dealt him to the Magic in return for a pair of largely unheral"ded players, Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins."


I'm not sure "unheralded" is the right word for Wallace -- he DID average 8 boards a game in 24 minutes and was a huge fan favorite in Orlando. He certainly wasn't the player he'd eventually grow into as a Piston, but he wasn't flotsam and jetsam. After all, Detroit thought enough of him that they gave him a six year, 30 million deal in that trade. Similarly, Atkins was a key reserve for the Tragic who put up very respectable numbers in small minutes.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Babbleon is correct about the Grant Hill trade, Scott. Hill decided to leave and agreed to do it in a sign and trade to get the larger and longer contract.

The fans were so pissed at Hill that he even went on the radio to try and explain why he was making the move from a family point of view.

Joe Dumars was angry about it. It wasn't part of his master plan. He wanted Hill very badly.

Ben Wallace got that contract and was included in the deal to make the salaries match, as I recall. He was no more relevent at the time than Sweetney was this summer. Dumars got lucky on that one. But don't get me wrong, he's an awesome GM.

As for Rasheed, Dumars did take that risk. But Wallace was not only talented and troubled, he played hard and was effective. I've seen no evidence that Paxson wouldn't take a similar risk on an effective hard playing player.

As for Carlisle, he and Joe D sparred for two straight years. He was rumored to be on the outs in Detroit for months before it happened due to a severe personality conflict with management.

Your Spurs description was dead on, but I think you are misremembering the history of the Detroit build pretty significantly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Babbleon is correct about the Grant Hill trade, Scott. Hill decided to leave and agreed to do it in a sign and trade to get the larger and longer contract.
> 
> The fans were so pissed at Hill that he even went on the radio to try and explain why he was making the move from a family point of view.
> 
> ...


I'm not misremembering . . . it's that my description in my first post isn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that Joe D dealt Hill from a position of strength. He obviously didn't; losing Hill was considered to be the death of the Pistons.

However, from that point on, Dumars couldn't have done a better job of making lemonade. And I think maybe you're misremembering Wallace's reputation -- he was a mainstay of that "heart and hustle" Magic team, a big-time crowd-pleaser, and someone who was definitely on the league's radar.

His hands were tied, and it was definitely a blessed accident (for all I know, the Magic didn't have Wallace's Bird rights and couldn't have re-signed him anyway), but I don't believe for a second Dumars just picked Wallace's name out of a hat.

As for Rasheed Wallace, I think you might be misremembering how disruptive he was considered to be, regardless of work ethic or how much his teammates liked him. He seemingly got ejected every other game during the depths of it, he was routinely lustily booed at the Rose Garden, he had some off-the-court stuff going on, etc. It was a pretty big risk by Dumars (and one I resolutely believe John Paxson would not take).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree with Pax. There is no reason this team shouldn't be playing better defense. No matter what you think of Curry and his size, the Bulls were still a good defensive team last year after his heart problems. I think we do miss AD, but he alone is not enough to account for this difference.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*Re: Garcia: Paxson: Trade is not answer, hard work is*



ScottMay said:


> Isn't being competitive this year and not getting embarrassed on a nightly basis important in the long term, too?
> 
> Is "effort" going to make Mike Sweetney or Andres Nocioni taller?
> 
> ...


Well said, well said.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not misremembering . . . it's that my description in my first post isn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that Joe D dealt Hill from a position of strength. He obviously didn't; losing Hill was considered to be the death of the Pistons.
> 
> However, from that point on, Dumars couldn't have done a better job of making lemonade. And I think maybe you're misremembering Wallace's reputation -- he was a mainstay of that "heart and hustle" Magic team, a big-time crowd-pleaser, and someone who was definitely on the league's radar.
> 
> ...



I agree with you about Rasheed Wallace, but I still don't understand how, even with your clarification, the ben wallace trade was an example of Dumars not being patient. Sure, he made what seemed to be a bad thing into a great one, but I don't see where patience or lack thereof really comes into it. He was forced into a corner.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

IF the trade isn't going to make us better int he future (where our chances are) then he shouldn't make the trade. This team, even with a star isn't gonna win a championship. I am moving from the darkside to the light a fire under the players butts side.

Again, we draft a big - Aldrige/Bargnani with our pick, sign Nene or Al Harrington in FA and then ad Rush/Brewer or trade the second first and our roster is upgraded significantly without much panicked trading.


For those who say don't trade Gordon to Boston for Pierce....Why not, Gordon won't get off the Bench is Pirce is here. I don't advocate it, just see the folly in it.

We are screwed this year without two solid bigs (which we just don't have).

Yes, we need an all-star caliber guy, but short of Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, T-Mac, Yao, Brand or Wade, I'm not interested. And you will have to WAYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy overpay for any of them.


Disgusted with our reality........but practicing the three P's (see signature for explanation)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I agree with you about Rasheed Wallace, but I still don't understand how, even with your clarification, the ben wallace trade was an example of Dumars not being patient. Sure, he made what seemed to be a bad thing into a great one, but I don't see where patience or lack thereof really comes into it. He was forced into a corner.


Fine, the Ben Wallace trade doesn't really fit into a discussion of Dumars not being patient. The original poster made a absurdly over-the-top compliment (imo) in regards to John Paxson's GM'ing abilities, and I inadvertently included Ben in my list of examples showing how Dumars is loathe to stand pat.

Even the Carlisle firing (I believe Ron Cey is right in that it was done as much for political reasons as anything else) -- Larry Brown was a fairly bold and inspired choice. There were plenty of easier, cheaper, and more conventional routes to go with that decision.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Okay, I finally got around to reading this thread in full. 

The one thing Paxson did in the articles that I disagreed with was his frankness about guys being role players and not superstars. He's basically right about that, of course, but it doesn't need to be stated publicly.

The rest of it was dead on point. I've been writing for three weeks now (since the Detroit game) that this team is playing without effort, focus, fire and aggressiveness. Almost everyone who posted in those threads agreed that they were seeing what I was seeing. But now that Paxson says what is freakin' obviously true about playing harder, he's throwing his players under the bus? Give me a break.

Before this little skid, *almost* everyone here thought this was a playoff team or a borderline playoff team that was in a transitional year. Now Paxson makes statements that agree with that concept - statements he's already made over the course of the last year, by the way, this is nothing new - and you guys find fault with that?

Its as though we can all come to a consensus about where this team is at and where it is going, but when the GM agrees with that consensus he's the bad guy. 

I saw a lot of talk in this thread about how Paxson said (even "staunchly" said) that he "refuses" or "is not going to" do anything about the team's roster problems. *But that is not what he said.* He specifically stated: 



> Paxson said he has talked to a few teams about potential trades but hasn't found an attractive deal.
> 
> "*To react short-term and give up something that can benefit us in the future would just be foolish to me," Paxson said. "If there's a deal to be made that could help us, not only now but long range, I'll do it.*
> 
> "There's nothing out there right now."


I really do hope these tough times don't mean that we are going to revert to the days of arguing against someone's conduct by using a created fiction against them. 

I understand the frustration with Paxson's far too frank statements about the guys being role players and not having any superstar players on the roster, and I share that frustration. Though obvious, he should have kept a lid on it. But the rest of what is being debated in this thread is based on a position imputed to Paxson that he simply didn't take. 

Anyway, he's right about being patient with roster moves in any event. Now is not the time to make a panic move. The future of the team is tantamount. And the present team is a potential playoff team if they get it done and play harder and with more focus - just like Pasxon said.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Okay, I finally got around to reading this thread in full.
> 
> The one thing Paxson did in the articles that I disagreed with was his frankness about guys being role players and not superstars. He's basically right about that, of course, but it doesn't need to be stated publicly.
> 
> The rest of it was dead on point. I've been writing for three weeks now (since the Detroit game) that this team is playing without effort, focus, fire and aggressiveness. Almost everyone who posted in those threads agreed that they were seeing what I was seeing. But now that Paxson says what is freakin' obviously true about playing harder, he's throwing his players under the bus? Give me a break.


Go back and re-check what he said. He didn't say, "this team is playing without effort, focus, fire and aggressiveness." He said, "*Paxson conceded his team is made up of role players and* *expressed disappointment that some have an agenda that steers them away from the game plan.

"I don't think the agendas are out of selfishness or anything like that," he said.

"I think most of these guys really want to win, but they're trying to do too much on their own thinking they can do it, and we don't have those types of players.

"I think they're out there trying to do too much instead of relying on the team concept and the things that have gotten them through."*

That's something entirely different from what you read. "these guys really want to win, but they're trying to do too much". 

The "agenda" word was used by Pax in a direct quote.

That sort of is throwing them under the bus. He's criticizing them for trying to do too much, but the reality that he's admitting is that they don't have a winnable situation. How do you criticize guys for trying too hard and getting frustrated when they're in a no-win situation? 

That's what I found most irritating out of everything he said. He wasn't criticizing the lack of fire, he was criticizing guys for not reacting all that well to a crummy situation. Well, it's a crummy situation- what did you expect?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I know Mike. "Agenda" has become a loaded word in pro sports. But he tried to clarify that he was not using it with the commonly applied connotation of selfishness. 

I think he was stating what we can all see is happening. He also acknowledges the tough spot the team is in due to the construction of the roster, which is on him. 

I don't think he's throwing anyone under the bus. I think he is perhaps too honestly, but accurately, describing the totality of the situation.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

double post


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

My two cents:

Paxson's whole point: 

This team is not constructed on the star principle, but on the team work and system principle. But there have been some glitches, some beyond his control and some of his own making, and now guys have started losing confidence in working together, and are not communicating and are instead "fighting" each other -- not literally, but in the sense that they are each in their own way trying to take over, when no one on that roster has that capacity. They've started to press, to give up in hard situations, and to flounder.

Hard work doesn't mean "scramble like chickens". Hard work means here, "discipline". They need to start playing with purpose and discipline, instead of in spurts, and according to their feelings or their own "agendas." It's the right use of the word, I think. 

I don't think Paxson is disavowing making a move. But he doesn't want the players to hold on to the crutch that we _can't_ win until we get more size, etc. They need to pull their act together, regardless of what he is doing on the management front. They need to play team ball to win. But they aren't playing with enough discipline and determination to do so. They have to come to that collective realization, and commit to it like they did last year.

I do think Paxson needs to realize the impact that sending Timmy Thomas away had on these guys, psychologically. I think they began to think about what they don't have precisely because of what they lost with AD, and didn't (wouldn't) make up with Timmy. I think it was very discouraging, and Paxson needs to realize it, and find a way to encourage these guys, even if there isn't anything out there right now that makes long-term sense. 

Skiles' throwing things up for grabs might work, but that seems to be a holding or even distraction mode of operations. If Paxson were to give a short term goal and some encouragement (small trade, fill the roster spot, etc.) and sense of purpose for this season, that might be enough motivation to get these guys out of their funk.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good Hope, I think this is money.

But I've got one question... pretty much the same one I had at the beginning of the thread.




Good Hope said:


> My two cents:
> 
> Paxson's whole point:
> 
> ...


Is it fair to say that this last part can be summarized as "*sticking to the gameplan*"? I think that's what a lot of this "dissension" boils down to (though I think the "A" word is a bad use and counterproductive). The mantra is *play within the offense* and good things will happen. 

The problem is that, given this particular set of players, playing within the offense as its constituted is not going to work either. Good things aren't happening. That's why the players, who aren't stupid, are doing anything they can. They know that help likely isn't on the way. Some of them may be discouraged with how things got to this point (re: Thomas, Curry, AD, Griffin) but that's beside the point for the short-run. They see a team that won't work, and are getting hammered for trying to make it work (perhaps, they think, by the guy who took away a few pieces of that helped or could help it work). That's discouraging and unnecessary.

*In short... how can you criticize guys for not sticking to a gameplan that doesn't appear to work? *Perhaps they should have more faith, but its clear at this point they've lost it and something needs to help them get it back.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> ...


I see a variety of different posters use this. What does this mean?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Hey, Happy New Year!

Back to the discussion:



Mikedc said:


> *In short... how can you criticize guys for not sticking to a gameplan that doesn't appear to work? *Perhaps they should have more faith, but its clear at this point they've lost it and something needs to help them get it back.


A gameplan that isn't stuck to never works. 

The problem from the beginning of the season on is that they haven't really grasped what they are doing as a team and how to do it. Their success came in spurts and fits, but the engine never really started to roar and take off. To compound the problem, Skiles is trying to work in three new big guys, and see how they fit. It makes for uncertainty, and then lack of confidence, and then floundering. 

But the fact is that the way they are going to win is by grasping the game plan and commiting to it, come hell or high water. They might be disappointed that management is not helping them to have the success they had last year. But the fact is that they could easily be 16 and 12, not the other way around, if they hadn't broken concentration. True, it would have been a "difficult" 16 and 12, not a resoundingly easy 16 and 12, but hey, that's something. Then, Paxson can fill in the holes still at sea, instead of having to pull in to dry dock and carry out some kind of overhaul.

Edit: But I wholeheartedly concur with your last point. The fact is they are discouraged. Skiles is doing what he can. He's even trying on the "player's coach" persona by calling a players only practice session.  

Paxson needs to chip in.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I see a variety of different posters use this. What does this mean?


It means I was going to say something, posted it, and then decided I didn't want to say it.


Its not a matter of grasping a game plan, IMO. We lack the horses. You need the horses. The best "smallball" team in the league is the one we're playing tonight.... and even they have the MVP of basketball and a freaky SF... along with solid vet PF/C. And even they will still need Amare to come back 100% if they want to win the whole enchilada.

Its not realistic to expect our players to run 110% into a brick wall every night, only to get up and do it again, and again, and again. 

At some point Paxson should apologize to his players and to the fans for putting them in a position to fail by the moves he made.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> It means I was going to say something, posted it, and then decided I didn't want to say it.


Oh. Is that how most people use it? I always got the impression that it actually had some meaning unto itself. 

Happy New Year, everyone! Be safe. I'm off to walk my dog, smoke a cigar and then get piss drunk. 

No Bulls game on the tube for me tonight. I doubt I'll miss much based on recent returns. Later.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No Bulls game on the tube for me tonight. I doubt I'll miss much based on recent returns. Later.


I'm going to have to watch it. Well, I don't have to, but I have tickets, so I feel bad wasting them.

It will be interesting to see how many people are there.

Anyway, it will just get me in the mood to drink some more!

Happy New Year!


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I think, its worth considering how the players feel about having role playing and chemistry rammed down there throat and succeeding last year, and then having some of the chemistry traded. From all reports A.D and Curry added alot to that. I understand paxson did it for a reason and it may work out better long term, I'm just looking at it from the players point of view. I think especially with young players, they want to feel like they belong to a franchise.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Hey, Happy New Year!
> 
> Back to the discussion:
> 
> ...


True, but a gameplan that's not working never gets stuck to.

OK, not never, but when we're talking about NBA basketball players, even the swellest of golly-geepers good team guys is typically a guy that's pretty "confident" in his abilities. The lure of the Dark Side is that it doesn't have to be a lot. Not like "I'm just going to ignore Coach and do my own thing out there", but rather like "I know I can make this shot! I'll show Coach and we'll win and he'll have confidence in me!". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Of course, if the gameplan isn't tenable either, all we're really talking about is whether we take the low road or the high road to hell.



> The problem from the beginning of the season on is that they haven't really grasped what they are doing as a team and how to do it. Their success came in spurts and fits, but the engine never really started to roar and take off. To compound the problem, Skiles is trying to work in three new big guys, and see how they fit. It makes for uncertainty, and then lack of confidence, and then floundering.
> 
> But the fact is that the way they are going to win is by grasping the game plan and commiting to it, come hell or high water. They might be disappointed that management is not helping them to have the success they had last year. But the fact is that they could easily be 16 and 12, not the other way around, if they hadn't broken concentration. True, it would have been a "difficult" 16 and 12, not a resoundingly easy 16 and 12, but hey, that's something. Then, Paxson can fill in the holes still at sea, instead of having to pull in to dry dock and carry out some kind of overhaul.
> 
> ...


Well, they seemed to play pretty hard last night, they just didn't have the horses. That's something I guess.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> True, but a gameplan that's not working never gets stuck to.
> 
> OK, not never, but when we're talking about NBA basketball players, even the swellest of golly-geepers good team guys is typically a guy that's pretty "confident" in his abilities. The lure of the Dark Side is that it doesn't have to be a lot. Not like "I'm just going to ignore Coach and do my own thing out there", but rather like "I know I can make this shot! I'll show Coach and we'll win and he'll have confidence in me!". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> ...


No doubt, until a gameplan works consistently, it's not clear if it's the gameplan, the players, or what. And if a gameplan works, there's no telling if it's the plan or the talent. 

But at the least, the players need to commit to the plan, which happens when some critical mass of players get the idea and believe in it enough to bring everyone else on board. Then guys like Ben and Tyson can go back to focusing on their one trick, developing other tricks slowly, and the team can start gaining some confidence in themselves and one another. 

It wasn't that "the players just played hard against the Suns, but we didn't have the horses." They didn't pull together as a team at the last minute. They got flustered, uncertain, and it slipped through their fingers. 

I'm not denying that the team needs some more horses, with Timmy out to stud and all. But there is just no point in the guys feeling sorry for themselves because they are "role" players who don't deserve max contracts. They are what they are, and they are earning millions of dollars doing what they do, and they can have moderate success, at the least, if they commit to doing what they should do. Play their best, play together, and that gives Skiles the best chance to find the right formula to bring decent success, and it gives Pax a clearer picture of how to build from here.

I don't think I'm saying anything too radical here, am I? And K4E's pitiful picture of guys running into brick walls and needing an apology from Pax...well, I'll just say that is a little melodramatic.

And happy new year to everyone, once again. I think this is going to be a great year for sports in Chicago.


----------

