# Paxson should be fired.



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Join the club! :cheers:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

For what reason?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> For what reason?


Pax is unwilling to trade Deng. Gasol > Deng. Fire Pax!

Houston had no interest in Sweetney for Bonzi. Fire Pax!

New York Knicks don't suck as bad as last season, therefore our only chance at a post player is gone. Fire Pax!

We couldn't even land SAR. Fire Pax!

In all seriousness, the Chandler for Brown trade was premature, although I'm not conviced he wouldn't have done a similar deal even if Chandler were playing well for us. If the choice was pick five out of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Noc, Wallace, and Chandler, Chandler would have been the one I shipped out as well.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Pax is unwilling to trade Deng. Gasol > Deng. Fire Pax!
> 
> Houston had no interest in Sweetney for Bonzi. Fire Pax!
> 
> ...


Hmm, I'd go with the 16 million dollar man, not Chandler to kick off the island. But thats just me.

Anyhow, Paxson kept justifying the Chandler trade that it would make a trade down the line easier. It didn't. We have no assets now. We lost an asset for nothing.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

Be careful guy with this post,pax's has a lot of supporter here,and people don't like when you talk bad about the o mighty pax's.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Regardless of your personal opinion of the guy, thinking he would get fired because of a certain move or moves he's made shows a complete lack of touch with reality. GMs are fired because of poor results and falling five wins short of preseason expectations barely counts. Take solace in the fact that if you're right and Pax has handcuffed the team the other shoe will drop two or three years from now. Until then this is all a massive waste of time. There's only so much time you can spend complaining and being bitter about things out of your control. 

I'm not a huge Ken Williams fan but I realize that the man has had his moments and I have better things to do than run around starting "Fire Kenny" movements when he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Get over it and you'll feel better.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Regardless of your personal opinion of the guy, thinking he would get fired because of a certain move or moves he's made shows a complete lack of touch with reality. GMs are fired because of poor results and falling five wins short of preseason expectations barely counts. Take solace in the fact that if you're right and Pax has handcuffed the team the other shoe will drop two or three years from now. Until then this is all a massive waste of time. There's only so much time you can spend complaining and being bitter about things out of your control.
> 
> I'm not a huge Ken Williams fan but I realize that the man has had his moments and I have better things to do than run around starting "Fire Kenny" movements when he's not going anywhere anytime soon.
> 
> Get over it and you'll feel better.


Expectations in the preseason were extremely high. Eastern Conference Finals at the minimum, if I remember right. When the Bulls lose again in the first round, we'll see.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sell Ronaldo, Sack Fergie!

Oh whoops...wrong board.

If Pax gets fired I could in good conscience root for the Bulls again. Which would blow your freaking minds.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

No, no it wouldn't.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Paxson still gets credit for 2 years ago, even if his offseason was HORRENDOUS! We were a good team, but with this cap space, we should've been #1 in the East. Instead, we spent our money and came into the season WITH THE SAME EXACT PROBLEMS, a big one still from when he traded our entire front court away to the Knicks. Okay, you get the top pick without having to suck, and what do you do? You take a PROJECT when you have big holes and are built to win NOW. Amazing. So in the end we replaced Chandler with an older more expensive version of him and brought back Griff. Wow. The only thing I liked was Thabo, and that doesn't matter since Skiles misuses him. The fact is there is a GREAT chance that we go one and done again, which is sad in this piece of crap conference.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

chibul said:


> Expectations in the preseason were extremely high. Eastern Conference Finals at the minimum, if I remember right. When the Bulls lose again in the first round, we'll see.


I remember one analyst picking us to reach the NBA Finals. Paxson never once said we were a contender to my recollection.

I predicted reaching ECFs as the highest attainable goal and would make for a joyous season. I think most were on board with me, plus or minus a few of course. The contender word gets thrown out there, people get excited, and rational thought leaves the discussion.

Why is it a given that the Bulls lose in the first round? Paxson didn't make a move? From my recollection, we have about 8 different players on the roster this season vs. last.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

_The general manager stands next to the more deserving man._


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The Bears weren't contenders either. Even at 13-3 with a first round bye, Chicago fans expected them to lose.

Even after the Seattle win, New Orleans is so much better than us. Then we make it to the Super Bowl and are competitive for 2 1/2 quarters. See, I told you so after losing the game.

If regular season dominance with the extremely high likelihood of winning a championship in the postseason is the only thing that makes Chicago sports fans happy, I can understand the reaction.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> _The general manager stands next to the more deserving man._


Bingo.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Sell Ronaldo, Sack Fergie!
> 
> Oh whoops...wrong board.
> 
> If Pax gets fired I could in good conscience root for the Bulls again. Which would blow your freaking minds.


We're on pins and needles.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

eymang said:


> Paxson still gets credit for 2 years ago, even if his offseason was HORRENDOUS!


That's how employment works. You're judged by the body of your work because if everyone - and GMs in particular - was fired every time they made a mistake or two, no one would hold a job for more than a few months.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> That's how employment works. You're judged by the body of your work because if everyone - and GMs in particular - was fired every time they made a mistake or two, no one would hold a job for more than a few months.


What's the win/loss record that makes up the body of work?

sub .500


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Join the club! :cheers:



wegro Im not only a president, but also a client. :mob: MOB UP! FIRE PAX!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

eymang said:


> Paxson still gets credit for 2 years ago,


That season when the two players Paxson inherited, Curry and Chandler, were our leading scorer, rebounder, shot blocker and 2 of our 3 best players (PER, Eff) was a grand one.

Too bad he ****ed the whole thing up.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Fire Paxson that is a joke right. He has totally turned this team around. We have five very solid players in KH, Gordon, deng, Noci, and Big Ben. We have two very good looking young rookies in Thabo and TT. And we have what appears to be the 9th pick in what eveyone agrees is one of the best drafts in 10 years.

The bulls are building for the future and how can anyone seriously talk about firing Pax. WAKE UP. It is not about winning it all this year it is about being a contender for the next 5 years.

WORD.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

giusd said:


> The bulls are building for the future


Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

chibul said:


> Expectations in the preseason were extremely high. Eastern Conference Finals at the minimum, if I remember right. When the Bulls lose again in the first round, we'll see.


That still falls pretty short of repeated and/or historic failings and I'd still bet money we advance out of the first round this season.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

giusd said:


> Fire Paxson that is a joke right. He has totally turned this team around. We have five very solid players in KH, Gordon, deng, Noci, and Big Ben. We have two very good looking young rookies in Thabo and TT. And we have what appears to be the 9th pick in what eveyone agrees is one of the best drafts in 10 years.
> 
> The bulls are building for the future and how can anyone seriously talk about firing Pax. WAKE UP. It is not about winning it all this year it is about being a contender for the next 5 years.
> 
> ...


You're sadly mistaken if you think "fire Pax" has anything to do with this year. This year, was for Pax to redeem himself of his past blunders (Curry/Chandler anal reaming), but he didnt...He's now on life support. What's he gonna do now to get that scoring big? Nancy kerrigan the **** out of all the knicks players in hopes that they lose out so we get more ping pong balls? This is what Pax has the fans looking to.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Curry is gone for a reason. He has no heart. He is out of position on every defensive play. He consistantly turns the ball over. The knicks are what 7 games under 500 and got clocked last night by the 76er's. And chandler. How many times did he get striped going up for rebounds. How many years in a row did he come into camp out of shape.

Seriously, soon we will be talking about how we need JC back. Remember the greatest PG of all time. Who now plays SG and is still one of the worst defensive SG in the NBA.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

giusd said:


> Curry is gone for a reason. *He has no heart.*












HEY--OOOOOO!!!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Meet the new boss.
> 
> Same as the old boss.


Yes. 20-something wins is the same as 40-something wins. Totally the same. Utter sameness.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yes. 20-something wins is the same as 40-something wins. Totally the same. Utter sameness.


If we were a 20 something win team, we'd have a real chance to get Oden or Durant.

Enjoy this "playoff run." Hope its worth it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Oh don't worry guys, we got the Knicks pick. O'Wait, Wade might be out for the year, and the Knicks could sneak into the playoffs. We'll grab Thabeet, he'll be our low-post guy. 

Nevermind, we got size. Lets go with Duhon/Gordon/Kirk/Noce/Wallace as our lineup. 

I don't like Skiles substitutions one bit, and he worries me that he can't coach big men, it appears. Curry and Chandler showed minor improvements, but none really developed to where they are at now. 

Pax has his opportunity. I hope he proves me wrong. I just hope he does, otherwise I won't forget this moment soon.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we were a 20 something win team, we'd have a real chance to get Oden or Durant.
> 
> Enjoy this "playoff run." Hope its worth it.


Don't worry, we'll be running into a playoff wall in the 1st or 2nd round the next few years. It's all good if you want to be labeled a playoff team, not a title contender.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we were a 20 something win team, we'd have a real chance to get Oden or Durant.


Yeah, K4E, I'm sure if Pax had a 20-win team you'd be singing his praises and supporting him all the way.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What's the win/loss record that makes up the body of work?
> 
> sub .500


Within percentage points of the fourth see who they currently have a better record than, tied for the best point differential in the league, strong playoff performance last season...you don't have to agree with me but I'm sure as hell not crazy for thinking so.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Do you guys realize we're a 6TH SEED, in this crummy conference, yuck!


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Is BJ a GM somewhere with an elite team?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Ok, so when do we judge Paxson? Last season we were told, give it another year, he'll have cap space and two high draft picks and we only have on really big hole - A POST STUD.

The offseason was disastrous: 
TT - The equivalent of a combine special.....Potential oozing, fools gold.
Thabo - Don't whether to blame Skiles or Thabo, so I'll blame both. Disappointing.

FA - Sign Blah Wallace - Over the hill, Overrated, the biggest one dimensional player in the game and you then trade your younger, taller, less polished version of the same thing.

Griffin - Signed for 3 Years!!!!!!!!!1 Damn, I expect to see Pippen back as the starting PF on a 5 year contract.

So now we head to - give it another year: (Damn, it's a good thing I'm a Cubs fan and am used to the NEXT YEAR slogan and frustration - But this is the Cubs year!)

Next season, barring lottery ball love, we are back with the same problem.......not one solid NBA Frontcourt player. I consider Wallace a very one dimensional and increasingly dilussional player. Give me Chandler back.....casue I don't see us going deep in the playoffs without a frontcourt.

And before you bash me for wanting Chandler back - Who here wouldn't trade a 2nd round pick for CHandler? That's all we got......oh, and salary relief for Reinsdorf.

Nice Job Pax, you earned your money this season.

Maybe you can turn the Knick Pick (and they have a real chance of making the playoffs with wade and miami down), into Jason Kapono or some other stiff. Wait, I got it, you're gonna draft Big Baby Davis from LSU to run with TT.

Glad it's over, disappointed with the lack of results. Pax, your on the clock.

BJ ARMSTRONG GOT SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

What is BJ's body of work?


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

chifaninca said:


> Ok, so when do we judge Paxson? Last season we were told, give it another year, he'll have cap space and two high draft picks and we only have on really big hole - A POST STUD.
> 
> The offseason was disastrous:
> TT - The equivalent of a combine special.....Potential oozing, fools gold.
> ...




Well said,but again thier is so much love for pax's it won't sink in,i with u though 100% on everything.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> Is BJ a GM somewhere with an elite team?


Paxson downgraded BJ's position from Assistant GM, to Special Assistant of John Paxson, and then BJ quit and went to work for ESPN.

David Aldridge said that Sacramento desperately wanted cap relief.

Something tells me we could have swung this deal.

Bulls Trade:

PJ Brown
Michael Sweetney
Thabo Sefolosha
Malik Allen

Bulls Receive:

Drew Gooden
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Eric Snow

Sacramento Trades:

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mike Bibby

Sacramento Receives:

Michael Sweetney
PJ Brown
Malik Allen
Thabo Sefolosha

Cleveland Trades:

Drew Gooden
Eric Snow

Cleveland Receives:

Mike Bibby

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

Its a shame we have the worst owner in sports.

Chris Duhon
Kirk Hinrich
Ben Gordon
Andres Nocioni
Luol Deng
Tyrus Thomas
Shareef Abdur Rahim
Drew Gooden
Ben Wallace

Is pretty damn sick.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Paxson downgraded BJ's position from Assistant GM, to Special Assistant of John Paxson, and then BJ quit and went to work for ESPN.


Intriguing.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> Ok, so when do we judge Paxson? Last season we were told, give it another year, he'll have cap space and two high draft picks and we only have on really big hole - A POST STUD.
> 
> The offseason was disastrous:
> TT - The equivalent of a combine special.....Potential oozing, fools gold.
> Thabo - Don't whether to blame Skiles or Thabo, so I'll blame both. Disappointing.


You can evaluate him now, he's been here three and a half seasons and seems to be rather well regarded by analysts. He's not perfect and some fans are unhappy with him. Oh well, that's part of the job description. The Heat won a championship last season yet I'll bet you can find more than a few fans on the internet critisizing Riley for the team's struggles this season and failure to improve the team at the deadline. As for judging rookies, you need to wait quite a bit longer than 50 games.

You're taking the thread waaaay off topic though because the thread is titled "Paxson should be fired." not "What is your opinion of Paxson." The point I made in my earlier posts was that no owner would fire Pax at this point so it's pretty ridiculous to constantly call for his firing.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Paxson downgraded BJ's position from Assistant GM, to Special Assistant of John Paxson, and then BJ quit and went to work for ESPN.
> 
> David Aldridge said that Sacramento desperately wanted cap relief.
> 
> Something tells me we could have swung this deal.


I'll disregard the fact that the entire proposal is founded on "something tells me..." and point out that based on comments made by a few analysts recently, takinng on a deal as modest as SAR's - not to mention Gooden's - would create luxury tax issues down the line that would prevent us from retaining the "big four."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> That's how employment works. You're judged by the body of your work because if everyone - and GMs in particular - was fired every time they made a mistake or two, no one would hold a job for more than a few months.


That's hardly true. In practice people who make six and seven figures... and even lots of people who make a lot less, are held to a much higher standard. And there's quite a few folks who manage not to make mistakes that get them fired.

I mean yeah, there's mistakes and then there are *mistakes*. The non-bolded kind don't get you fired. The bolded kind cement you in mediocrity, waste assets, and have price tags like $60M on them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Within percentage points of the fourth see who they currently have a better record than, tied for the best point differential in the league, strong playoff performance last season...you don't have to agree with me but I'm sure as hell not crazy for thinking so.


What are you talking about? You brought up his "body of work" and when that's not really all that good, you're talking about something else, which isn't all that good, either.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> That's hardly true. In practice people who make six and seven figures... and even lots of people who make a lot less, are held to a much higher standard. And there's quite a few folks who manage not to make mistakes that get them fired.
> 
> I mean yeah, there's mistakes and then there are *mistakes*. The non-bolded kind don't get you fired. The bolded kind cement you in mediocrity, waste assets, and have price tags like $60M on them.


Comparing a GM to other workers is pretty impossible in most aspects so perhaps I made a mistake by invoking the comparison in a first place. I mean maybe if you have an Enron style "mistake" you lose your job but my point was that the occasional lapse in judgement does not cost people their jobs; no one is flawless. Pro sports are different because every transaction has a winner and a loser, meaning that everyone makes a lot of mistakes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

In the NBA, it seems to me lots of transactions have no winners.

It also seems to me that most everyone gets fired after a few mistakes.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'll disregard the fact that the entire proposal is founded on "something tells me..." and point out that based on comments made by a few analysts recently, takinng on a deal as modest as SAR's - not to mention Gooden's - would create luxury tax issues down the line that would prevent us from retaining the "big four."


The luxury tax doesn't prevent us from retaining the big four, our cheapass owner does.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What are you talking about? You brought up his "body of work" and when that's not really all that good, you're talking about something else, which isn't all that good, either.


There's absolutely no reason why you'd evaluate a team's achievements in a vaccuum. None. I don't really have time to sit here contesting "the world is flat" type arguments.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> There's absolutely no reason why you'd evaluate a team's achievements in a vaccuum. None. I don't really have time to sit here contesting "the world is flat" type arguments.


YOU made the assertion that you had to evaluate Paxson's "body of work." His body of work isn't very good. I guess it doesn't fit the rose colored picture you want to paint, so whatever.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

chifaninca said:


> Ok, so when do we judge Paxson? Last season we were told, give it another year, he'll have cap space and two high draft picks and we only have on really big hole - A POST STUD.
> 
> The offseason was disastrous:
> TT - The equivalent of a combine special.....Potential oozing, fools gold.
> ...



Well put. I just am baffled as to why we have guys like Viktor, TT & TS & not make a meaningful deal. If we dealt Deng, Nocioni would have been the starting SF with Viktor as backup, Barrett was signed as insurance so Duhon could have been dealt as well. TT & Sefolosha are decent players and would probably grow to be better but damn it if we need more youth on this team.

I just don't know how much longer Pax is going to wait to do something. Is he going to wait for other teams to grow into contenders like Toronto, Orlando & others who are making very slow progress but are eventually going to get there. 

There is also no guarantee that we will get anyone great in the draft that would help us out automatically. Who knows if teams would even consider trading their bigs anymore. I'm just disappointed that nothing was done to help out on our needs from this past summer to the deadline.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> YOU made the assertion that you had to evaluate Paxson's "body of work." His body of work isn't very good. I guess it doesn't fit the rose colored picture you want to paint, so whatever.


I don't think I ever made the claim that it should be evaluated in a vaccum based on career winning percentage. I suppose it's easier for you to argue against arguments I didn't make though than attempt to acknowledge reality.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't think I ever made the claim that it should be evaluated in a vaccum based on career winning percentage. I suppose it's easier for you to argue against arguments I didn't make though than attempt to acknowledge reality.


I see. I'll set up one of your strawmen. So the "body of his work" doesn't show up in the W/L.

May as well bring the NBDL guys back. Can root for them as much as anyone else as long as W/L doesn't matter.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I see. I'll set up one of your strawmen. So the "body of his work" doesn't show up in the W/L.
> 
> May as well bring the NBDL guys back. Can root for them as much as anyone else as long as W/L doesn't matter.


You act as if I'm talking a foreign language here. My intial point - which I thought I stated quite clearly - was that wins are the primary factor in whether or not a GM retains his job. I also mentioned in multiple posts in this thread the importance of team _expectations_. You and I both know that the reason Pax's W/L is below .500 is that the team won 30 games his first season and was not expected to win anywhere near 41 games. Seems like an improbable reason that Pax would be fired if you asked me, especially since it took place over three years ago.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Eddy Curry & Antonio Davis for Sweetney, Tim Thomas, 2006 1st (Tyrus Thomas), a 2007 1st (Swap) & two future 2nd rounder's*

So far, we're losing this trade quite badly. The cap space allowed us to sign Ben Wallace (who's been a dissapointment to most) & we picked up TT in the draft although we needed low post scoring (Aldridge). TT's gonna have to become a beast, and SOON for Chicago fans not to continue to be p'd off at this trade. The 2007 pick isn't looking so great either. Isaiah...was right??!!?

*Tyson Chandler for P.J. Brown & J.R. Smith*

I really don't blame Pax for this one, he signed Tyson to a ridiciulous deal and he didn't play up to it. He also did WORSE in the playoffs, so we really can't blame Pax for trying to cover his own arse. Now, it's one thing to trade the kid but to get P.J. to use at the deadline and to not even trade him!? WAHHHH!!

*J.R. Smith for Howard Eisley & two 2nd round picks*

Smith was looking like a star at one point of the season, he's cooled off a bit but it was still a BAD deal. He made the move in order to sign Adrian Griffin to a 3-year deal?! WAHHHHH!!!!!!

*Brad Miller & Ron Artest for Jalen Rose & Travis Best*

I don't quite remember if Pax was here when this deal went down, but if he was?! Obviously it looks quite horrible at this point.

*Jalen Rose for JYD & Antonio Davis*

Good trade, Jalen was becoming a cancer.

*LaMarcus Aldridge & a 2nd Rounder for Tyrus Thomas & Viktor Khyrapa*

Yeah, TT was a beast in March Madness but Aldridge was the best low-post scorer in college b-ball. 6"11 and plays PF/C. He'd be alot more valuable to us right now. I'm still a big TT fan though. We don't even USE Viktor Khyrapa so that was a waste.

Pax is a hell of a talent evaluator, but he's a HORRRRRRRIBLE GM when it comes to trades


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Krause did the Artest + Miller for Rose deal.

But I agree on your points ROY.

We have to hope for some serious internal development, especially from Tyrus. By serious, I mean, someone hitting STARdom.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Just for the record, the Eddy Curry trade didn't get us the capspace to sign Ben Wallace. That trade just gained us a mere 1.1 million in capspace. Jamal Crawford/Jalen Rose trades freed up capspace.

Paxson seemed to have it right with that 04-05 team....but we all know how he messed that up. We would be building on a 47 win team....with tons of capspace...enough to sign a guy like Ben Wallace!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The ROY said:


> *Eddy Curry & Antonio Davis for Sweetney, Tim Thomas, 2006 1st (Tyrus Thomas), a 2007 1st (Swap) & two future 2nd rounder's*
> 
> So far, we're losing this trade quite badly. The cap space allowed us to sign Ben Wallace (who's been a dissapointment to most) & we picked up TT in the draft although we needed low post scoring (Aldridge). TT's gonna have to become a beast, and SOON for Chicago fans not to continue to be p'd off at this trade. The 2007 pick isn't looking so great either. Isaiah...was right??!!?
> 
> ...


The Artest trade was Krause. And lets wait and see on what Thomas turns into and what the player drafted this year turns into before declaring the Curry trade in NYs favor. The Chandler trade looks pretty bad though.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Where Paxson screwed the pooch was leaving his team so bereft of big man talent that Jerry West and other GMs had the upper hand in negotiations and maybe asked for more than they would have if the Bulls were not so desperate.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I agree with Sloth and Triple Double. You guys make good points.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

The ROY said:


> *Eddy Curry & Antonio Davis for Sweetney, Tim Thomas, 2006 1st (Tyrus Thomas), a 2007 1st (Swap) & two future 2nd rounder's*
> 
> 
> *Tyson Chandler for P.J. Brown & J.R. Smith*
> ...


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> *Eddy Curry & Antonio Davis for Sweetney, Tim Thomas, 2006 1st (Tyrus Thomas), a 2007 1st (Swap) & two future 2nd rounder's*
> 
> So far, we're losing this trade quite badly. The cap space allowed us to sign Ben Wallace (who's been a dissapointment to most) & we picked up TT in the draft although we needed low post scoring (Aldridge). TT's gonna have to become a beast, and SOON for Chicago fans not to continue to be p'd off at this trade. The 2007 pick isn't looking so great either. Isaiah...was right??!!?


The thought that Eddy is now a dominant player is pretty inaccurate. The only reason his departure looks glaring is because he matches the Bulls' glaring need but that's a reason to make a huge commitment to a player you have huge doubts about (whether or not those concerns were reasonable is an entirely seperate issue). If you asked all 30 GMs in the league whether they would rather have TT and a lottery pick in this draft or Curry right now, I suspected about 25 would opt for Tyrus and the pick. The five who would accept would be teams like the Bulls with a glaring need for post scoring.

On a side note, Aldridge's offensive game is largely facing the basket (65% jumpers according to 82 games). We'll see how he develops in the long term but right now he's a rich man's Malik Allen.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> *Brad Miller & Ron Artest for Jalen Rose & Travis Best*
> 
> *Pure delusion here. A contender's type move for a loser team? Made 0 sense.*
> 
> ...


Sorry, but unless I failed to pick up on some sarcasm here, this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen on this board. You blasted Pax for a move made by Krause and accused him of "side stepping the issue" where he dumped one of the worst contracts in the league, which pretty much single handedly gave us cap space this summer.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

JeremyB0001 said:


> You blasted Pax for a move made by Krause and accused him of "side stepping the issue"


If you refer to the first part "a contender's move by a pretender" you would have understood. My "blasting" isn't limited to Pax, if that's what you thought. Jalen was brought for a specific purpose, when that wasn't fulfilled, that void was still there. Pax, newly HIRED, didn't do a good job of cleaning up. Also, please don't talk about cap space, it hurts to even think about it. Who do we have here RESPECTABLE to fill that space? T-Mac? No. Duncan? Hell no. Im sure you understand now.

Our gms, past and present, have been horrid. Both like to shoot themselves, then scramble around looking for a cure. Like a headless chicken running in circles.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> If you refer to the first part "a contender's move by a pretender" you would have understood. My "blasting" isn't limited to Pax, if that's what you thought. Jalen was brought for a specific purpose, when that wasn't fulfilled, that void was still there. Pax, newly HIRED, didn't do a good job of cleaning up. Also, please don't talk about cap space, it hurts to even think about it. Who do we have here RESPECTABLE to fill that space? T-Mac? No. Duncan? Hell no. Im sure you understand now.
> 
> Our gms, past and present, have been horrid. Both like to shoot themselves, then scramble around looking for a cure. Like a headless chicken running in circles.


Paxson actually did a good job cleaning up.

He got Deng, Nocioni, Duhon, and Gordon onto the team.

The Rose/Marshall and Crawford trades cleared up tons of capspace that would be able to be used in the 2006 offseason (big misconception that the Curry trade is the one that cleared up the capspace, that only cleared up 1.1 million).

If he just stuck with the 04-05 team, and added to it in free agency in 2006, this team would be easily the best team in the East, if not the league.

But he ****ed up on that, and traded Curry....then Chandler...


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

I can't believe he stood pat before the deadline, the Bulls season is now a wash; no championship with Brown and Ben as the offensive post options. If they fail to acquire a big that can score (Rashard, Antawn, KG, etc) this summer, then I would call for his head.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Paxson actually did a good job cleaning up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's something he was supposed to do, his job as a GM...that wasn't brilliant or anything special. LOL thats like getting a pat on the back for getting perfect attendance in high school...not gonna happen. Make some genius moves in the draft, make some FAVORABLE trades, or sign some big free agents, then you give the GM credit, but not for that stuff.

I agree on the 2nd part though. I thought the team would improve on the 47 wins and make that next step.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Not surpirised to see this thread. Some questions?

Now that you know what West wanted would o anyone have made the deal(2 core + 07pick)?

Is Curry so good there is no way Thomas and the pick put together can have more value?

Do you believe JR was not resposible for the Chandler trade?

Hard for JR to fire Pax when the only move he ever made that was obviously not good was the one he went over Pax's head with.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

You still want pax fired, knowing that west wanted two of our core and the pick? He never backed down.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Expectations in the preseason were extremely high. Eastern Conference Finals at the minimum, if I remember right. When the Bulls lose again in the first round, we'll see.


Fan expectations are often unrealistic. There are probably about a dozen teams fans who think they're making the conference finals every year. I thought a 2nd round exit was a realistic expectation for this team. I think that seems like the most likely scenario to me today too.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Now that you know what West wanted would o anyone have made the deal(2 core + 07pick)?


Like MikeDC said in the other thread, it doesn't implicitly say that it was the 2007 pick. If not, that changes things fairly notably. However, your point stands.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> What's the win/loss record that makes up the body of work?
> 
> sub .500


Sure, he walked into a team that averaged 23 wins (or so) over the past 5 seasons prior to him getting there.

That team was over the salary cap for 3 more years (I believe) at the time, was filled with bad attitude cancerous players, and had just lost last year's 1st round pick in a motorcycle wreck, and generally had few assets other than the draft to build with. They never got a pick in the draft in Paxson's tenure to make an obvious franchise saving selection either.

Since he took over the team has had 1 bad season (the first after he came on board) and has since won 47, 41, and on pace for 45 wins this year. The team only has one significant contributor over the age of 26, so there is a lot of potential improvement left on the roster, and certainly no one outside of Wallace is a threat to slow down in the near future. The team has no bad salary on it currently either and is in a very solid cap position for the future.

On top of that, from an ownership perspective, he has refilled the stadium every night and brought interest back to the team that had completely ceased to exist during the end of the Krause tenure. The Bulls as of today are likely more profitable than they've ever been outside of a title year which is a nice achievement considering where the team was. Even if you don't like his moves as a fan, Reinsdorf has to love the way things are going as an owner.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

For the record, not making a trade that was probably very close in terms of value doesn't seem to be a fireable offense to me.

However, I will say that even though I wasn't a fan of the Curry fiasco, I could see the Bulls on a potentially championship course even after it. This summer and this season have been significant setbacks to what I think were the long-term odds of a championship team.

Thus, I think a course correction is needed. I think Pax needs to recognize this and come up with some moves to do it. So far, I think he's content to follow the path he's on, and I think that's a mistake.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I don't like Skiles substitutions one bit, and he worries me that he can't coach big men, it appears. Curry and Chandler showed minor improvements, but none really developed to where they are at now.


Chandler is playing at a lower level per minute now than he was 2 years ago. 

Curry has improved significantly, but he was on a fairly consistent trend of improvement before he left Chicago, and at his age to expect additional improvement isn't unreasonable (he was 21 I believe when we traded him). His first season out of Chicago was a nightmare, but to be averaging like 3 points more per game than his last season here after 2 years and maturing from 21 to 23 doesn't really make me think the Bulls coached him all that poorly when he was here. That seems like a normal developmental pattern. 

It just seems like he had massive improvement since he left because he had massive improvement from last year. He's not that much better than he was 2 years ago though.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Sure, he walked into a team that averaged 23 wins (or so) over the past 5 seasons prior to him getting there.
> 
> That team was over the salary cap for 3 more years (I believe) at the time, was filled with bad attitude cancerous players, and had just lost last year's 1st round pick in a motorcycle wreck, and generally had few assets other than the draft to build with. They never got a pick in the draft in Paxson's tenure to make an obvious franchise saving selection either.
> 
> ...



Good post. Pax last 18 months look a lot worse than his first 2 years on the job but Reinsdorf is going to let him play this out for some time. The halo is gone, but he is at least going to get all of this year and all of next. Probably much more.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Chandler is playing at a lower level per minute now than he was 2 years ago.


Chandler played at a very high level 2 years ago which many people seem to have forgotten. With that said, if Chandler continues on his current torrid pace, his level per minute will be a career high. Along with everything else except FT shooting. And doing it with starters minutes. Quite an accomplishment.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> The offseason was disastrous:
> TT - The equivalent of a combine special.....Potential oozing, fools gold.
> Thabo - Don't whether to blame Skiles or Thabo, so I'll blame both. Disappointing.


Who would you take over TT right now? LaMarcus Aldridge? Why? Tyrus is averaging more points, boards, blocks, and steals per minute (with significant advantages in the boards/blocks/steals). The only difference is Tyrus doesn't get entitlement minutes because his team has expectations. He's not as far on his learning curve, so he's the more likely of the two to make a big step forward in the off season as well.

Who would you take over Thaboo? Rodney Carney who gets entitlement minutes for Philly but has basically no skills? Ronnie Brewer hasn't done anything. 

Let's face it, this draft has been one of the worst ever. We had 2 picks in it, and the draft sucked. Oh well. 



> FA - Sign Blah Wallace - Over the hill, Overrated, the biggest one dimensional player in the game and you then trade your younger, taller, less polished version of the same thing.


Yeah, I really wish we could have had Nene for 60 million instead. Maybe we could have paid 50 million to Wilcox or Gooden. Yeah, you know what would have been great is if only we had gotten Przybilla. Look, the FA class sucked. I'm on the "Wallace was vastly overpayed and won't help us" bandwagon, but the viable alternative to Wallace was what? 



> Griffin - Signed for 3 Years!!!!!!!!!1 Damn, I expect to see Pippen back as the starting PF on a 5 year contract.


Yeah at 1.5 a year or so? Who cares. We gave him an extra year because we coudln't pay him more this year under the cap. Big deal. It's not like Griffin is killing the cap here. 

The problem with this off season isn't Paxson. It's shallow analysis by fans who expect:
1) The GM to get every move perfect and make the best move in every possible situation.
2) The GM to create good moves where they don't exist by looking only at the results and not at the possibilities that led to them.

You know what the best case scenario for the Bulls this past off season would have been?

Not using any of our cap space, and keeping Tyson Chandler. Anyone we paid would have become a bad contract right away and not made significant improvement to the team. However, if this had been done, Paxson would have been absolutely reamed out by everyone. If he had signed 100 million of future contracts (using all our cap space) and kept Chandler the team would not really be any better than it is now, but it'd be deep in the luxury tax in 2 years and would probably have to let go of Gordon or Deng due to salary restrictions or at the very least would avoid using the MLE to keep a managable salary basis.

All in all, this off season could have gone better, but people should be lamenting the choices Paxson had at his disposal more so hating Paxson for what he chose.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Chandler played at a very high level 2 years ago which many people seem to have forgotten. With that said, if Chandler continues on his current torrid pace, his level per minute will be a career high. Along with everything else except FT shooting. And doing it with starters minutes. Quite an accomplishment.


I agree. However, considering Tyson's age and previous shown development, I don't think it's an indictment of our coaching staff that he has improved to the level he was currently at. I do think trading Chandler was a mistake. Not as big as some people because most people don't want to consider managements desires for salary reasonability, but Chandler has shown that he's worth his contract. 

I think most people would have liked us to keep Chandler adn still use all our cap space, but that wasn't going to happen unless we let Deng or Gordon walk later. We basically went from Chandler to Wallace. I'd rather have Chandler right now because I don't think the Bulls will win this year, and while I think Wallace is quite a bit better today, Chandler will be better in 2 years than Wallace will be when we're more ready to make a real run.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, his first few months weren't all that hot. Coming in, endorsing the Bulls as a playoff team, signing Pippen and quite possibly passing on Wade. Getting Hinrich was a great pick where he was, but most of those other things sucked, and his initial miscalculations probably set the necessary rebuilding back several months. There were minor things too... dumping Hassell to keep around Roger Mason Jr, botching the waiving of Corie Blount by simply no knowing the league rules. The Rose/AD trade was ok taken by itself (didn't actually open much cap room when you figure in JYD). On the whole his first season wasn't an auspicious start.

I'll completely admit to being wrong about his second summer though. Moving JYD's unmovable contract with Crawford was quality GMing. Had to move an asset to get rid of it. Signing Noc, getting the Phoenix pick, Deng, Gordon, and Duhon... all great moves. Best year by far.

Next year. Even people that like Pax will say in some generic sense that he could have handled the Curry situation better. We ended up getting more back than I think Pax expected. I'll leave it at that. One could make the argument that Tyson is gone now because the Bulls didn't work all that hard to get the best deal they could from him. He visited nowhere else and from my understanding talked to noone else, but still got a market level contract. We needed him back, but I don't see any reason to not try for the best deal possible. Not great, but not awful.

This past summer. Well, I already stated my opinion a couple posts up. Too early to tell on the draft picks, though that in itself is a mild disappointment, I still have high hopes for Thomas in the long run. Too soon to call on the picks, but the other moves make baby jesus cry.

So from where I sit, that's one very awesome season and three that vary from bad to questionable to ok.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Good post. Pax last 18 months look a lot worse than his first 2 years on the job but Reinsdorf is going to let him play this out for some time. The halo is gone, but he is at least going to get all of this year and all of next. Probably much more.


I would be willing to bet anything that Paxson has a hell of a lot longer rope than 2 years. Paxson has ramped up Bulls profitability to one of the highest points it's ever been. He's improved the team quite a bit at the same time. There's no way Reinsdrof is even considering firing him IMO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Not using any of our cap space, and keeping Tyson Chandler. Anyone we paid would have become a bad contract right away and not made significant improvement to the team.


Don't know that that's true. There's of course the middle ground of using some of the cap space as well. Enough to plausibly help us, and/or giving bigger contracts in the short run.



> However, if this had been done, Paxson would have been absolutely reamed out by everyone.


So would you rather be reamed out for making a move that looks bad but pays off later or a move that looks good on the surface but obviously sucks in three months?



> If he had signed 100 million of future contracts (using all our cap space) and kept Chandler the team would not really be any better than it is now, but it'd be deep in the luxury tax in 2 years and would probably have to let go of Gordon or Deng due to salary restrictions or at the very least would avoid using the MLE to keep a managable salary basis.


We don't appear to be using the MLE now.

I think your financial analysis is off in any case. We could have kept around Chandler and added another $8-10M in salary and been comfortably under the tax threshold even assuming healthy new contracts for our young players.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

Dougthonus just put a sikkk crossover on this thread.

Good posts, man!


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Don't know that that's true. There's of course the middle ground of using some of the cap space as well. Enough to plausibly help us, and/or giving bigger contracts in the short run.


On who?

People have a fair right to criticize his moves, but I think for those criticisms to be valid they need to have specific alternative choices. Not generalizations about how we could have gotten "someone". My point is that a good "someone" didn't exist. Not in the draft, not in free agency. If you think there was a good someone who wouldn't be on a really bad deal right now, then I'd be interested to see who you think it is. I may have overlooked someone, but no one pops to my mind right now.



> So would you rather be reamed out for making a move that looks bad but pays off later or a move that looks good on the surface but obviously sucks in three months?


At the time, I don't think the move would have looked like it paid off later. At the time, I didn't think Tyson Chandler was going to massively turn things around, because he looked like a player who got paid and then quit. I don't think the move we made was significantly worse (in fact, I think in the short term (2 years) it was better). I just think in the long term that would have been better in hindsight. At the time, it would have been ridiculously stupid looking.



> We don't appear to be using the MLE now.
> 
> I think your financial analysis is off in any case. We could have kept around Chandler and added another $8-10M in salary and been comfortably under the tax threshold even assuming healthy new contracts for our young players.


I can't say I remember Paxson's first year if we used the MLE, but we used it the following 2 seasons, and we didn't have it this year.

You are right that we could have just used part of our cap space (though this gets back to who we could have added).
2 years out:
Chandler 11
Gordon ~9 (signs increasing deal)
Deng ~9 (signs increasing deal)
Hinrich 10
Nocioni 7
Tyrus 3.7
Thabo 2
Duhon 3
2007 pick: 2

~57.7 million

If we signed increasing deals then we could have gone with maybe 4-5 million and stayed under it for the next 2 years. If we let go of Chris Duhon or Andres Nocioni then we could have freed up more money under the threshold. I'd rather keep Nocioni than any of the FAs we could have gotten this year though, so I wouldn't sacrifice him to a FA this year. Duhon I could see letting go. However, in this scenario, everyone signs increasing deals except Hinrich, so in 3 years, we're in total salary probably 4 million higher, same with the year after that. So in years 4/5 of Tyson's deal we'd be over the tax unless we signed short term guys this summer. Granted, that would be small exposure for only 2 years, which should be doable. However, that's still based on letting Duhon go and using about 7 million or so. 

I think that'd put us maybe 4 million into luxury tax land in year 4 of Tyson's deal and 8 million in year 5 if we don't use the MLE and don't add significant salary over the minimum. That doesn't seem like a lot of wiggle room to try and improve the team. 

Would:
Replacing Wallace + Duhon + MLE this year with (7-8 million dollar FA this year) + Tyson leave us as a much better team. I think that's roughly the equivalent of what you'd have a choice of.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> I would be willing to bet anything that Paxson has a hell of a lot longer rope than 2 years. Paxson has ramped up Bulls profitability to one of the highest points it's ever been. He's improved the team quite a bit at the same time. There's no way Reinsdrof is even considering firing him IMO.


Yep, it's Skiles, not Paxson, that gets fired in 18 months if it's 2 first round flameouts. So, worst-case, starting in summer of 2008, Pax will get at least 2 years along with his new coach.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, Harrington would have been a helpful player and his contract was clearly movable. Not the ideal size, but the sheed-like offensive game would have worked well next to Chandler just like next to Wallace.

Similarly a guy like Gooden at about the same price, while somewhat overpaying, wouldn't have put us over the tax. Paying more over the short-run is an option too (like the 3 year deal Gooden signed).

And, like I said, we could add an $8-10M player to Chandler and not go over the tax in all likelihood. Gooden is making $6.6M and Harrington $7.6M. We possibly could have signed a role player like Songaila too. He's making $3.7M to start.

So would we be a championship team with those guys. I doubt it, but they would legitimately have filled in our bigtime hole at PF, we could have drafted whomever we thought was best and still had plenty of assets for a trade.

Would trading Gordon and/or Deng not be much more palatable if we had Harrington and Brandon Roy, for example?

I mean, there are plenty of specific examples possible, but they come back to the same point. We started off with three assets. Cap room, draft pick, Chandler. We essentially turned those three into one by replacing Chandler with a slightly better but older and more expensive version (Wallace) and a much younger version that won't be ready to contribute until the older one isn't (Tyrus). B

In essence, it was sort of like a "consolidation trade" in practice. And what it did was make all of our other assets relatively harder for us to give up trading.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> We started off with three assets. Cap room, draft pick, Chandler. We essentially turned those three into one by replacing Chandler with a slightly better but older and more expensive version (Wallace) and a much younger version that won't be ready to contribute until the older one isn't (Tyrus).
> 
> In essence, it was sort of like a "consolidation trade" in practice. And what it did was make all of our other assets relatively harder for us to give up trading.


Good post. However, and you are not the first person to post this, but it's not clear to me how Wallace is better than Chandler right now. 06-07 Wallace is definitely not as good as 04-05 Chandler was for this team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'd rather Paxson not get fired. Which is pretty cool for me, considering, you know, that he won't be.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

dougthonus said:


> I would be willing to bet anything that Paxson has a hell of a lot longer rope than 2 years. Paxson has ramped up Bulls profitability to one of the highest points it's ever been. He's improved the team quite a bit at the same time. There's no way Reinsdrof is even considering firing him IMO.


The most questionable moves (the Crawford trade, the Curry trade and the Chandler trade) all had financial components that made Reinsdorf & friends richer by cutting salary obligations. I doubt very much that Paxson was uninfluenced by directions from the owners in any of those cases. So it would be hypocritical for Reinsdorf to fire him now.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Chandler for PJ Brown trade turned out, with the failure to get a deal done for the expiring contract, to be a disappointment.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Well, Harrington would have been a helpful player and his contract was clearly movable. Not the ideal size, but the sheed-like offensive game would have worked well next to Chandler just like next to Wallace.


The price of Harrington would have gone up if we were to bid on him. It's not like we could have just bid $1 more than what he signed for and then won necessarily. Also, Harrington was so well liked in Indiana that they decided to immediately ship him out. 



> Similarly a guy like Gooden at about the same price, while somewhat overpaying, wouldn't have put us over the tax. Paying more over the short-run is an option too (like the 3 year deal Gooden signed).


Gooden would have cost a ton more if we had bid on him, because we would have had to outbid what Cleveland would match. It's unlikely we could have got him on a 3 year deal that Cleveland wouldn't have matched.



> And, like I said, we could add an $8-10M player to Chandler and not go over the tax in all likelihood. Gooden is making $6.6M and Harrington $7.6M. We possibly could have signed a role player like Songaila too. He's making $3.7M to start.


You're ignoring the way the bidding process works though. Those players would have cost us more except perhaps Songaila, who well, you can't honestly say you wish we had him can you? 



> Would trading Gordon and/or Deng not be much more palatable if we had Harrington and Brandon Roy, for example?


If we traded both for Gasol it would have been fricken idiotic regardless of who else we had on the roster. Roy would have been a nice draft pick, were you seriously advocating for him on draft day when we had a great backcourt and an empty front court or is this hindsight? 

Harrington is awful. He's a huge defensive sieve and a ball dominator on offense who would make our offense worse if he had a large role in it.



> I mean, there are plenty of specific examples possible, but they come back to the same point. We started off with three assets. Cap room, draft pick, Chandler. We essentially turned those three into one by replacing Chandler with a slightly better but older and more expensive version (Wallace) and a much younger version that won't be ready to contribute until the older one isn't (Tyrus). B


And to me it all comes back to the point that there were no really good moves to make. All of your examples might have slightly improved the team or maybe not. There's no definitive move that you could look at and say "Wow, if we did this, we'd be vying for the title". We didn't pass on Chris Paul and Deron Williams in the draft with a PG need (ala the Hawks). We didn't pass on a stud in FA that would have made everything better.

I fully admit that what we did wasn't the best possible outcome. However, expecting the best possible outcome out of every situation is unreasonable. I just don't think the better alternatives are significantly better under the constraints that exist. If we were allowed to explode payroll we could have had a better team, but that clearly wasn't going to happen.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:



> The Chandler for PJ Brown trade turned out, with the failure to get a deal done for the expiring contract, to be a disappointment.


In hindsight, undeniably his one truly bad move.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we were a 20 something win team, we'd have a real chance to get Oden or Durant.
> 
> Enjoy this "playoff run." Hope its worth it.


Yeah, and I'm sure there will be more people on this board if the Bulls were a 20 win team so we could talk about how BAD the Bulls are!! What great fun!! (I've had enough of the embarrassing losing seasons after MJ left)


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> In hindsight, undeniably his one truly bad move.


..which he managed to compound by giving away JR Smith for nothing.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Well, Harrington would have been a helpful player and his contract was clearly movable. Not the ideal size, but the sheed-like offensive game would have worked well next to Chandler just like next to Wallace.
> 
> Similarly a guy like Gooden at about the same price, while somewhat overpaying, wouldn't have put us over the tax. Paying more over the short-run is an option too (like the 3 year deal Gooden signed).


I'm sorry, but I have to call BS here. If I remember correctly, you spent the better part of last season pointing out problems with the options available using our cap space. Specifically, the idea of signing Al Harrington and the lack of benefits that move offered. And now in hindsight, he's a "helpful player" with "sheed-like offensive game"? Interesting new take.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> Dougthonus just put a sikkk crossover on this thread.
> 
> Good posts, man!


Yes, good posts indeed.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> ..which he managed to compound by giving away JR Smith for nothing.


which for as many times as the above has been repeated i suppose it bears repeating that the smith move was "pre-arranged" and agreed upon by smith's agent arm tellem, something that i've *learned* over the course of reading this same assertion *repeatedly*. smith was *never* an option the bull intended to exercise, rightly or wrongly. 

a kid who can't get on the court for byron scott, the hornet can't *give* him away, yet only paxson compounds a mistake by working with an agent to get a kid a situation where he can prosper, just not in chicago?

where's the "beating a dead horse" smilie when you really need it?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> YOU made the assertion that you had to evaluate Paxson's "body of work." His body of work isn't very good. I guess it doesn't fit the rose colored picture you want to paint, so whatever.


:chill: :chill: :chill:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> ..which he managed to compound by giving away JR Smith for nothing.


I don't give two ****s about JR Smith.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't give two ****s about JR Smith.


HaHa.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

dougthonus said:


> Chandler is playing at a lower level per minute now than he was 2 years ago.
> 
> Curry has improved significantly, but he was on a fairly consistent trend of improvement before he left Chicago, and at his age to expect additional improvement isn't unreasonable (he was 21 I believe when we traded him). His first season out of Chicago was a nightmare, but to be averaging like 3 points more per game than his last season here after 2 years and maturing from 21 to 23 doesn't really make me think the Bulls coached him all that poorly when he was here. That seems like a normal developmental pattern.
> 
> It just seems like he had massive improvement since he left because he had massive improvement from last year. He's not that much better than he was 2 years ago though.



Awesome post. I may quote it nine or ten times.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

dougthonus said:


> I would be willing to bet anything that Paxson has a hell of a lot longer rope than 2 years. Paxson has ramped up Bulls profitability to one of the highest points it's ever been. He's improved the team quite a bit at the same time. There's no way Reinsdrof is even considering firing him IMO.


Again, great post.

The only kind of owner that would be considering firing Paxson at this point is the kind of owner that would have pulled the trigger themselves: Someone like a Mark Cuban or footballs Jerry Jones.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> I would be willing to bet anything that Paxson has a hell of a lot longer rope than 2 years. Paxson has ramped up Bulls profitability to one of the highest points it's ever been. He's improved the team quite a bit at the same time. There's no way Reinsdrof is even considering firing him IMO.


I agree.

The UC is packed and his "right way"/hard work vibe is a popular one with the masses.

The money is pouring in, championship contender or no championship contender.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The money is pouring in, championship contender or no championship contender.


and we'll *all* be rejoicing when (and if, for the doubtful) the championship happens, right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> On who?
> 
> People have a fair right to criticize his moves, but I think for those criticisms to be valid they need to have specific alternative choices. Not generalizations about how we could have gotten "someone". My point is that a good "someone" didn't exist. Not in the draft, not in free agency. If you think there was a good someone who wouldn't be on a really bad deal right now, then I'd be interested to see who you think it is. I may have overlooked someone, but no one pops to my mind right now.


On who? Harrington and Gooden. Both of them. "someone" DID exist. (Both signed for ~$8m/year, we had $19M in cap space). Strawman has been knocked down.

It's already been pointed out that we could have signed both, kepth Chandler, re-signed our core, and remained under the tax. We'd be pretty good with Harrington, Gooden, Deng, Chandler, and Noc manning the 3 frontcourt positions.

The core is fine. I've seen enough of Allen, PJ Brown, Griffin, Viktor, Sweetney, Duhon, Thomas, and Thabo to be underwhelmed.

I think your use of misdirection is clever, but it doesn't fool me. Pax inherited a team that won 15, then 21, then 30 and turned it into a 23 win team and using your own line of reasoning, has produced a combined 4 year record that's sub .500.

As DC pointed out, the team has had only one really good complete season (above .500) in his tenure. As others have pointed out, Pax excused his horrible trading patterns by claiming "Cap Space!" and "Flexibility," and has made the team play with one hand tied behind its back (e.g. unbalanced roster, not enough talent to win). After accumulating all those chips, he spent them on Wallace, drafted two guys of no real help for any time in the seeable future, and we're looking like a worse team after all that than two years ago.

A win is a win, no argument from me. When they come at the expense of a schedule heavy with teams like the Celtics, Bobcats, 76ers, Hawks, Heat (without Shaq) and Bucks, it's all the more impressive.

No matter how you spin it, Chandler is playing 34 minutes a game, scoring 8.2 PPG, grabbing 12+ boards a game, blocking nearly 2 shots a game, and is shooting 60%. What did we get for him in trade? Isn't is downright silly in the end that Pax went to bat and struck out this trade season looking for a big man after trading away two of them in consecutive years?

I'll end with this. The knicks pick looks like the end of the road. If it doesn't pan out, we're done. No more "wait till next year for the piece that'll surely turn us into a real contender" rhetoric will sucker the suckers.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> No matter how you spin it, Chandler is playing 34 minutes a game, scoring 8.2 PPG, grabbing 12+ boards a game, blocking nearly 2 shots a game, and is shooting 60%. What did we get for him in trade? Isn't is downright silly in the end that Pax went to bat and struck out this trade season looking for a big man after trading away two of them in consecutive years?



Chandler needed a change of scenery. Its legitimate to complain about what we got for him, but for his sake he had to go. It wasn't working out here. 

It happens all the time in the NBA.

Who do you want as GM (thats available)?



> The knicks pick looks like the end of the road.


Theres also internal growth and development.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Chandler needed a change of scenery. Its legitimate to complain about what we got for him, but for his sake he had to go. It wasn't working out here.
> 
> It happens all the time in the NBA.


He needed to play full-time and not just be a Q4 defense guy. D'oh! That's exactly the difference in what he's doing in NOK now vs. how Skiles used him.



> Who do you want as GM (thats available)?


BJ Armstrong was my first choice when Krause left, he's still a good choice.



> Theres also internal growth and development.


But the other teams don't improve. Our guys are somehow magical at the age of 24, 25, 26, 27 that they improve more than other teams?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> He needed to play full-time and not just be a Q4 defense guy. D'oh! That's exactly the difference in what he's doing in NOK now vs. how Skiles used him.


Everyone on this board knows that Chandlers problems in Chicago went deeper than PT. As I said before, and it is a legitimate question: Was he the kind of player you structure your organization around? Meaning...dismiss the coaching staff (and possibly the GM if you're the owner) to keep him happy?

Thats what it boiled down to. Yes, Pax deserves criticism for the trade he made...but not for the fact that he felt he needed to make a trade.



> BJ Armstrong was my first choice when Krause left, he's still a good choice.


Based on what? His experience as Krause's assistant?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Everyone on this board knows that Chandlers problems in Chicago went deeper than PT. As I said before, and it is a legitimate question: Was he the kind of player you structure your organization around? Meaning...dismiss the coaching staff (and possibly the GM if you're the owner) to keep him happy?
> 
> Thats what it boiled down to. Yes, Pax deserves criticism for the trade he made...but not for the fact that he felt he needed to make a trade.


Everyone on this board? LOL.

Everyone on this board knows that Chandler got married in the offseason and sat on his behind without a contract until Pax dealt with the Curry Fiasco (of his own making, too) and came into camp in less than ideal playing shape.

Looks more to me like Paxson saw a big contract that wasn't expiring and freaked out.




> Based on what? His experience as Krause's assistant?


That gives him more qualification than Pax had.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> BJ Armstrong was my first choice when Krause left, he's still a good choice.


the dead has arisen........

bj's employed by????


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> bj's employed by????


Maybe he's taking the Scott Skiles career track.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

> Last season, Chandler clashed with Scott Skiles, his coach in Chicago. This season, Scott has been a mentor and friend to the young center, and Chandler has often said he feels Scott is the reason he has played so well.
> 
> "When you have a great coach like our coach -- and a great person -- the last thing you want to do is let someone like that down," Chandler said.


I think that last sentence says a lot about why Tyson and Skiles didn't see eye to eye. Skiles seems a lot more handsoff, as opposed to the hands on approach of both Isaiah T and Byron S.

It just wasn't going to work out for Tyson here. Differences in philosophy mean you change the men at the top or you change the player. Was he the class of player you re-do your organization around --new coaching staff and possibly GM-- to keep him on the roster?

Pax should/could have gotten more...but Chandler was moving on as long as he was GM. He didn't fit Pax or Skiles worldview.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

> The 7-foot Chandler credits Scott for rejuvenating his game. The two often have sit-down talks, where the coach feeds the center with motivation.


http://www.nola.com/sports/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-28/117065951686720.xml&coll=1&thispage=2


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

So what are you saying, GB, keep skiles, fire the talent you need to win games?

Doesn't make sense.

Too bad we don't have Scott as coach, eh?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I think that last sentence says a lot about why Tyson and Skiles didn't see eye to eye. Skiles seems a lot more handsoff, as opposed to the hands on approach of both Isaiah T and Byron S.
> 
> It just wasn't going to work out for Tyson here. Differences in philosophy mean you change the men at the top or you change the player. Was he the class of player you re-do your organization around --new coaching staff and possibly GM-- to keep him on the roster?
> 
> Pax should/could have gotten more...but Chandler was moving on as long as he was GM. He didn't fit Pax or Skiles worldview.


A sign of a good coach is getting the most out of his players. Skiles clearly failed badly with Chandler. How is he doing with the rest of the roster? There are a ton of coaches out there that would love to plug Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Noch into their system. Skiles isn't making chicken-salad out of a chicken ****.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> So what are you saying, GB, keep skiles, fire the talent you need to win games?


Huh?

Should Paxson have realized that Skiles approach was the wrong one for Tyson...and (assuming Skiles and Chandler could not co-exist)...fired him?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> A sign of a good coach is getting the most out of his players. Skiles clearly failed badly with Chandler.


Perhaps. But the same approach seems to be working with both Gorden and Deng (and you could argue that Duhon has raised his game since his rookie season as well). So is Skiles a bad coach, or was his approach not the one that Chandler needed?

I think it was the approach. And these things happen...coaches can't magically change their style to fit every player. Sometimes its quite impossible.

Assuming thats the case...should Skiles have been dumped and another coach brought in?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Huh?
> 
> Should Paxson have realized that Skiles approach was the wrong one for Tyson...and (assuming Skiles and Chandler could not co-exist)...fired him?


What's a coach worth, a couple of wins a season? What're the players worth? The rest!

Fire Skiles if he can't produce with the big man you just signed to a $50M+ deal. Of course.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> What's a coach worth, a couple of wins a season? What're the players worth? The rest!
> 
> Fire Skiles if he can't produce with the big man you just signed to a $50M+ deal. Of course.


Legitimate argument.

But by extension, we then need to lay the blame on Reinsdorf, because he's coddling the GM that won't hire a coddling coach.

I seem to remember Paxson saying something about Skiles style when he hired him. I'll have to look it up later.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> But by extension, we then need to lay the blame on Reinsdorf, because he's coddling the GM that won't hire a coddling coach.


You seem to imply that Chandler needed a coddling coach. I think he need a coach that encouraged, not discouraged, him to play offense, not just D and rebound. There's a difference.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to call BS here. If I remember correctly, you spent the better part of last season pointing out problems with the options available using our cap space. Specifically, the idea of signing Al Harrington and the lack of benefits that move offered. And now in hindsight, he's a "helpful player" with "sheed-like offensive game"? Interesting new take.


That's because you're cherry-picking. 

As Doug is endeavoring to show, he's got his flaws. I don't think he would have made us a champion or anything. But he is an additional piece and if you can find where I say we should have just not used the money on anyone, I would like to see it.

You won't find it, because I wanted to do the best we could with the money, even if it wasn't up to people's overinflated expectations.

I'm sorry it's not a simplistic way to look at things, but it seems like a realistic one. These guys have flaws. They're not perfect players. And at least for me, I can be unenthusiastic about an option and still consider it the best one. 

Harrington looked like the best one until Wallace somewhat unexpectedly came available. Wallace looked like the best, but if I'd known the cost of Wallace was the immediate dump of Chandler, then I damn sure wouldn't have been in favor of it (as I think I made very clear when Chandler was traded).

In fact, once we brought in Wallace, I was pitching Harrington extremely hard because I recognized that we needed a viable option in our frontcourt. Perfect or not, he looked available. What I objected to last year is people making believe any of these guys are going to be saviors the way you seemed to think. 

And what I objected to this summer was not spending the money, but spending the money on "win now" but doing a half-*** job of it and doing it at the expense of the long-run.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> You seem to imply that Chandler needed a coddling coach. I think he need a coach that encouraged, not discouraged, him to play offense, not just D and rebound. There's a difference.


Actually, Tyson said the same...that being encouraged to play offense was a big deal to him and that his confidence comes from that.

But...

We're pining away for a low-post _scorer_. Even with several touches a game, Chandler doesn't meet that description. Skiles wants a guy in his offense that can take an entry pass, and because he is a threat to score, key the offense.

Plus Chandlers face time with Scott is a big deal to him. He was NOT going to get that from Skiles.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> On who? Harrington and Gooden. Both of them. "someone" DID exist. (Both signed for ~$8m/year, we had $19M in cap space). Strawman has been knocked down.


Let me get this straight, because I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you.

Drew Gooden and Al Harrington are the guys who you are saying that we missed out on who are so good that Paxson's offseason is now considered an unmitigated diaster. These guys are the difference in our off season. Signing one of them and keeping Chandler you think would have made us a great team compared to signing Wallace?

Yes, straw man knocked down indeed. I am humbled.

Cleveland has steadily played Gooden less and tried to move him at the deadline, and Indiana already dumped Harrington. Clearly those are guys making big differences for their teams. If only we could have struck while the iron was hot!

Again, this gets back to real opportunity cost. The risk in trying to make a move for the 4 time defensive MVP and hoping that he defies age was worth giving up a shot at a mediocre player who was sure to be overpayed. It hasn't turned out great yet, but let's wait and see how Wallace steps up the rest of the season. A lot of older vets coast through the earlier part of the season when they know that NBA regular season is more or less meaningless and only the playoffs matter.



> It's already been pointed out that we could have signed both, kepth Chandler, re-signed our core, and remained under the tax. We'd be pretty good with Harrington, Gooden, Deng, Chandler, and Noc manning the 3 frontcourt positions.


Well I just pointed out the base salary levels of if we kept everyone, and by my calculations we'd have definitely been in the luxury tax years 4 and 5. Maybe not by so much that it'd have been a big deal though. If the team was good then I'd hope we'd have been willing to take that chance.

However if you assume we keep the core, you're basically offering a choice between Ben Wallace + Duhon + MLE or Chandler + Harrington down the road. Do you really think Chandler from Harrington is definitely better and by a significant margin? I'm not sure it's better at all, and the margin definitely isn't huge. Again, it's an off season where there was no great way to go. No path would have led us to a point significantly better than we are now.



> The core is fine. I've seen enough of Allen, PJ Brown, Griffin, Viktor, Sweetney, Duhon, Thomas, and Thabo to be underwhelmed.


I will wait until Thabo and Thomas get some legit playing time. I never expected anything out of anyone else other than scrub minutes.



> I think your use of misdirection is clever, but it doesn't fool me. Pax inherited a team that won 15, then 21, then 30 and turned it into a 23 win team and using your own line of reasoning, has produced a combined 4 year record that's sub .500.


Yeah, I'm sure losing Jay Williams in the middle of his first off season didn't impact that 30 win team at all. Jalen Rose obviously went on to continue to play well leading other teams back to the promised land after we traded him. Clearly the core pieces of that 30 win team were going to go right on carrying us to the title had we only kept that group together. And you think I'm using misdirection.

The Bulls have had one bad year under Paxson who started with basically nothing, and have put us in a very positive place. Solid player assets, not bad contracts, manageable financial position, a roster which still has a lot of potential for internal improvement etc.. 



> As DC pointed out, the team has had only one really good complete season (above .500) in his tenure. As others have pointed out, Pax excused his horrible trading patterns by claiming "Cap Space!" and "Flexibility," and has made the team play with one hand tied behind its back (e.g. unbalanced roster, not enough talent to win). After accumulating all those chips, he spent them on Wallace, drafted two guys of no real help for any time in the seeable future, and we're looking like a worse team after all that than two years ago.


You still haven't provided any reasonable alternative. Lamarcus Aldridge is doing nothing special in Portland. There were no good post scorers in FA. You gave me 2 guys who's teams don't even like them. Congratulations. It seems you won't be happy unless we win the title regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable goal. I would also love to win a title, but there has been no path from here to there.

If Aldridge blew up and was awesome then you could have a legit complaint. If Wilcox or Gooden blew up and was awesome you could have a legit complaint. As it is though there is no legit complaint. It's a bunch of whining noise because the team isn't as good as you'd hope it would be. It's not as good as I'd hope it would be too, but there are no great moves that were left on teh table that would put us in a significantly better place.

Stop, sit back and ask yourself, are you really attaching yourself to the Drew Gooden/Al Harrington cart. Those are the guys that are going to get us past the 1st round? Those are the guys you'd have wanted more so than Ben Wallace. Please.



> I'll end with this. The knicks pick looks like the end of the road. If it doesn't pan out, we're done. No more "wait till next year for the piece that'll surely turn us into a real contender" rhetoric will sucker the suckers.


I agree. The problem is no matter what we do we won't be contenders unless we get lucky in the draft, with an MLE signing, or get massive internal improvement. Where I disagree is that you seem to think becoming a contender is easy and that any schmoe would have already done it. I think that looking over our potential moves throughout Paxson's reign that no matter what he did.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Actually, Tyson said the same...that being encouraged to play offense was a big deal to him and that his confidence comes from that.
> 
> But...
> 
> ...


Chandler didn't need "face time". He needed to have a coach that encouraged him to shoot. Good to see Scott's going the extra steps to make that happen. LOL at Skiles for saying that his staff put in more time with Chandler than any other player. Per Bill Walton, it's effectivness not effort that counts.

Just because we primarily need a low-post _scorer_ doesn't mean that substituting in a declining 32 post defender for an improving 24 year post defender isn't going to be a huge hurdle for the francise too over the next several years.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Let me get this straight, because I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you.
> 
> Drew Gooden and Al Harrington are the guys who you are saying that we missed out on who are so good that Paxson's offseason is now considered an unmitigated diaster. These guys are the difference in our off season. Signing one of them and keeping Chandler you think would have made us a great team compared to signing Wallace?
> 
> Yes, straw man knocked down indeed. I am humbled.


BOTH. SIGN BOTH. Not one or the other.

Your strawman is that nobody offers the alternative. The alternative is BOTH Harrington and Gooden.



> Cleveland has steadily played Gooden less and tried to move him at the deadline, and Indiana already dumped Harrington. Clearly those are guys making big differences for their teams. If only we could have struck while the iron was hot!


Kobe sucks too, right? Another fiticious argument you're making - Gooden and Harrington are just fine for us in the context of our team. Just as Wallace was an all-star and DPOY in the context of Detroit's team (but not ours). They're also Hinrich's age or thereabouts.

I'll let you reload and try again, since you are arguing something that is irrelevent. You did miss the part of my post where I wrote "The frontcourt would be manned by Harrington AND Gooden AND Nocioni AND Deng AND Chandler" right?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> The price of Harrington would have gone up if we were to bid on him. It's not like we could have just bid $1 more than what he signed for and then won necessarily.


Never suggested that. He signed for $7.5M with the Pacers because they had a trade exception. He wouldn't have gone up that much because they couldn't offer that much more. Hence the $8M or so I mentioned. A little bit more, but also a better situation.



> Also, Harrington was so well liked in Indiana that they decided to immediately ship him out.


Because he was an awful fit. Athletic, up-tempo player sent to a slow-it-down, half court team.



> Gooden would have cost a ton more if we had bid on him, because we would have had to outbid what Cleveland would match. It's unlikely we could have got him on a 3 year deal that Cleveland wouldn't have matched.


Perhaps.... The Bulls had a wide variety of choices. They could have done something like offer 2 years $30M. For Gooden, Harrington, Peja, etc. In the case of Gooden, that'd skirt the tax for us but maybe push Cleveland over. So I don't think you can concretely say what they'd do.

Obviously those are possibilties, not certainties, but that goes with everything you suggest too. Simply asking for specifics in a situation where certainty is impossible is a bit much.

It was also quite possible to hang on to Chandler for a couple years and see how it played out with Wallace. It's certainly possible that we'd all be talking about the great Ben Wallace salary dump right now if Chandler was here as a viable option for us.



> You're ignoring the way the bidding process works though. Those players would have cost us more except perhaps


A non-issue... I suggested we would be paying more than they actually got. The bidding process works out differently in different cases. Harrington, from everything I've seen, expected to be courted and quickly signed by us. We expected to do that to, but were delighted to find that Wallace had a real interest in leaving Detroit.



> Songaila, who well, you can't honestly say you wish we had him can you?
> 
> 
> > No, but in hindsight I'd rather have Chandler+Gooden/Harrington + Songaila/Griffin for $20M than Wallace + Griffin + maybe an MLE for $20M.
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

And by the way, Nene looks to be closing back in on quality young big man form from his knee injury. He's averaging 18 and 7 with 2 assists a steal and a block this month. And he's 24. Maybe not a great contract, but that's the going rate for a quality young big, and he's looking like it. 

And we'd be looking very good with 2 young seven footers.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> LOL at Skiles for saying that his staff put in more time with Chandler than any other player.


Did he say that? It just lends credence to the thought that Tyson really needed a change of scenery.

No way of proving it, but we could have brought Scott here with the same methods and still have needed to move Chandler.  It happens.

You can't always put 100% of the blame on the coach.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> You can't always put 100% of the blame on the coach.


GMs do this all the time when they fire their coach. :biggrin:


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> GMs do this all the time when they fire their coach. :biggrin:


No. They make the change easiest to make at the moment.

I remember Paxson firing Cartwright AND calling out the team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

This thread started out as weak and anemic as the thread title foretold, but it has really evolved into one of the better threads we've had in a while.

And I'll bet dollars to dougthonus who is responsible for raising the bar.

Nice job.

And good posts, my friend.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DC

By my figuring we had $19M in cap space.

Gooden signed for $6.45M, Harrington for $7.6M. That'd leave us $5M in cap space to bid higher on the two.

Another strawman is that Pax had to use the draft picks. He could have traded them for future considerations, 2nd round picks even. That'd have given us another $5M or so.

Also, with us being so far under the cap, if we really had to, we might have worked a sign and trade deal for Gooden if Cleveland forced the issue (say, Duhon and another $3M in savings).

FWIW, having another scorer like Harrington would be pretty huge for us right now, and having 30 minutes of Gooden at near double-double kinds of numbers would be a huge improvement over PJ Brown.

Would these guys put us over the top? Maybe not either one individually, and maybe not the two of them combined. But we'd absolutely have a much better and balanced team and a better shot at it.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> That's because you're cherry-picking.
> 
> As Doug is endeavoring to show, he's got his flaws. I don't think he would have made us a champion or anything. But he is an additional piece and if you can find where I say we should have just not used the money on anyone, I would like to see it.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I misunderstood your comments throughout the course of last season. However, spending money for the sake of spending money doesn't sound like a good basketball position, especially in the current climate of luxury tax and salary cap. Point being, if you're willing to shell out $45M+ for any player, I would think you would do so enthusiastically and with the expectation said player would improve your team.

And if you believe Harrington or Gooden could have improved the team, what was the point of disparaging cap space throughout much of the season, when it was in fact an avenue for improving our talent level? 



> Harrington looked like the best one until Wallace somewhat unexpectedly came available. Wallace looked like the best, but if I'd known the cost of Wallace was the immediate dump of Chandler, then I damn sure wouldn't have been in favor of it (as I think I made very clear when Chandler was traded).


So you would choose an underachieving, inconsistent, foul and injury prone big man over a 4-time DPOY All-Star Center? Come on. Hindsight is a great weapon.



> In fact, once we brought in Wallace, I was pitching Harrington extremely hard because I recognized that we needed a viable option in our frontcourt. Perfect or not, he looked available. *What I objected to last year is people making believe any of these guys are going to be saviors the way you seemed to think.*


I don't see much difference between Chandler's and Wallace's skill sets. I'm wondering why you were pitching for Harrington extremely hard AFTER the Wallace signing and not while Chandler was still on the roster?

As far as the last part, I don't remember there being expectations of an All-Star big man. Personally, I thought we could have signed a player to help our team, thereby making cap space a useful tool (that's not how it was portrayed around here, though). 



> And what I objected to this summer was not spending the money, but spending the money on "win now" but doing a half-*** job of it and doing it at the expense of the long-run.


This sounds like some political catchphrase. Maybe you can explain how our long-run prospects were jeopardized during the summer?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> And by the way, Nene looks to be closing back in on quality young big man form from his knee injury. He's averaging 18 and 7 with 2 assists a steal and a block this month. And he's 24. Maybe not a great contract, but that's the going rate for a quality young big, and he's looking like it.
> 
> And we'd be looking very good with 2 young seven footers.


One could make the same argument for Wallace. After his initial adjustment period, he's had averages of 11 reb/2.4 blk and 12 reb/2.3 blk over the last 2 months. Those are in-line with his Detroit numbers from the last 2 seasons.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> One could make the same argument for Wallace. After his initial adjustment period, he's had averages of 11 reb/2.4 blk and 12 reb/2.3 blk over the last 2 months. Those are in-line with his Detroit numbers from the last 2 seasons.


And as I mention in the How About that Ben Wallace thread I just started, there is last nights 12 points, 19 rebounds and 7 blocks in an absolutely Godzilla-like performance.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> And as I mention in the How About that Ben Wallace thread I just started, there is last nights 12 points, 19 rebounds and 7 blocks in an absolutely Godzilla-like performance.


Yeah, he's had some dominant games this season. Another one that jumps out would be his 17 reb, 4 blk performance in our win over Dallas. Seems like he can still do it when motivated. One would hope he'd be motivated for the playoffs.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, he's had some dominant games this season. Another one that jumps out would be his 17 reb, 4 blk performance in our win over Dallas. Seems like he can still do it when motivated. One would hope he'd be motivated for the playoffs.


I don't think motivation is an issue. I think he's old, and 33 year-olds have less energy. 

I expect the trend of having one great game along with a handful of good games and some bad games to continue.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> One would hope he'd be motivated for the playoffs.


Ask the Pistons how that all worked out last season.

Ouch.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Ask the Pistons how that all worked out last season.
> 
> Ouch.


Wallace was visibly run down in the playoffs last year. He started the year like a house on fire (as did the Pistons) and then just gradually ran out of gas as the regular season progressed. 

I don't think Wallace should be playing 3000 minutes in the regular season any more. It's good to see that Skiles is playing him a little less this year in the regular season, but it would be better if he had played even fewer minutes per game than he has.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> BOTH. SIGN BOTH. Not one or the other.
> 
> Your strawman is that nobody offers the alternative. The alternative is BOTH Harrington and Gooden.


And my response is we are luxury tax hell, and it's already clear that management wasn't going to let that happen which gets back to the point of _under the constraints the team was working with_. Even if we signed both and kept Tyson, I don't think the team would be any better than it is now. We'd definitely have more balance though. 



> Because he was an awful fit. Athletic, up-tempo player sent to a slow-it-down, half court team.


Or maybe it's because they realized what Atlanta realized what most of the NBA realizes is that Harrington is an awful player. He's a horrid defender, and a selfish ball-dominating player on offense. He would have been horrible for us on both ends of the court. If you could just drop Harrington on our team now then I don't think we'd have won a single game more than we have.



> Which is really the point. You say Pax didn't have good enough options. Well, options don't get much better than $17M in cap room and the #2 pick in the draft.


Draft express recently did an article on this draft. Statistically, I believe it was the 2nd weakest draft in the past 27 years so far. The #2 pick in this draft hasn't amounted to anything because the draft class has been awful. 

Cap space is great, but only if there is someone to spend it on. Ever since the RFA rules have come into the NBA and all the players who had non RFA deals have aged, so all young talented players are locked up until they are near 30, having cap space rarely produces a stud player anymore. I think this is something that GMs have only recently begun to realize (as you've noticed with the decline in value of expiring deals).



> I think this is hindsight on your part. Many folks, I think ourselves included, acted as if Wallace was a definitive move. Many folks were wrong.


It is hindsight that I said nothing else we could have done would have led to a significantly better team than where we are right now? Yes. It is. It was intended to be hindsight. I was intending to go back and look at what we could have done differently to create a better conclusion than what we currently have. Using that power, I have not come up with a good alternative that makes me feel like we really screwed up.

There are little things I would change with the power of hindsight. However, most of the things I would have liked to do would not have struck me as reasonable alternatives at the time. I would (with hindsight) have kept Chandler and not spent our cap space. This would have allowed us to better facilitate a trade at the deadline than what we could have done, and I think that Chandler has the potential to be very valuable in 2 years when the rest of our team is more ready to make a legit run. Ben Wallace (who I think is still much, much better than Chandler currently) will have declined beneath him by that point most likely. 

However, looking back at the landscape at the time when Chandler had bailed out on us and basically quit on the season not working out, and came back playing worse than he had in any healthy year in his career would have made that plan look awfully dangerous to me. Not using our cap space knowing that we'd lose most of it the next season and would get nothing out of it would not look like a good idea to me. I would not have seen those things coming, but if I could turn back the clock that's what I would do now.



> Agreed that it wasn't the best possible outcome and that nobody is always gonna make the best choice. Disagree that there weren't significantly better ones. They may not have been the most popular choices at the time, or the you or I'd have made, but it's clear now there were better choices given the options he had to work with.


The key word was _significant_. If you threw Wallace off the team and added Harrington or Gooden and brought back Chandler, I'm not sure our team would be better at all, and I definitely don't think it would be significantly better. It would be a team that has the pieces to be better 3 years from now though while Wallace's value will decline, but it would have been a team with much less salary maneuverability.

This also only makes sense if you assumed that Chandler was going to come back greatly improved going into the off season. I'm not sure that would have happened had he stayed with the Bulls, and considering how he tanked his first year into his big contract, I don't blame anyone for having a lack of faith in Chandler. I obviously was not prominent here (as I post more at the other big Bulls forum), but everyone there hated Chandler all year round. I assume the same thing was here, because I don't know how it could nto be. Chandler was pathetic last year. I don't think management knew what to do with him. Swapping him out for Ben Wallace seemed like a massive, massive upgrade at the time. Right now, even with Chandler playing better, it still strikes me as an upgrade in the short term, but not nearly as big of one as expected due to Chandler playing better.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> The key word was _significant_. If you threw Wallace off the team and added Harrington or Gooden and brought back Chandler, I'm not sure our team would be better at all, and I definitely don't think it would be significantly better. *It would be a team that has the pieces to be better 3 years from now though*


That's significant to me. I agree the short-run effect on the court is negligible. Except, possibly, that expectations would have been managed better because we'd expect this to be a young, growing team that would get over the hump and into the second round instead of Ben Wallace and the kids who'd be "contending".

But yes, the key part is better in 3 years. And that is clearly significant.



> while Wallace's value will decline, but it would have been a team with much less salary maneuverability.


How so? It appears to me we could have resigned our core guys, kept Chandler and stayed under the luxury tax threshold even with signing Wallace. We certainly couldn't have gone out and used the MLE, but we don't appear inclined to do that now, based on the Bulls' balking at taking back a guy with a contract like Rahim.

So what flexibility does signing Wallace give us exactly? We'd likely be able to re-sign our kids either way. We likely wouldn't be signing an MLE player either way. So I'm not seeing much difference.

Length of contract isn't clear either since signing a younger player to a high (but still less than Wallace) dollar, shorter term deal seems like it was a possibility too. In that event, all the advantages conferred by having Wallace expire in 3 seasons (which, I guess, is using the MLE) would be conferred by having Harrington or Gooden expire in 2 or 3 season.

It looks like a wash to me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Ask the Pistons how that all worked out last season.
> 
> Ouch.


A banged up squad losing in 6 in the Eastern Conference Finals to the eventual champion Miami Heat?

Eeeeehhh. If he could get us that this year, I guess I'd take it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> A banged up squad losing in 6 in the Eastern Conference Finals to the eventual champion Miami Heat?
> 
> Eeeeehhh. If he could get us that this year, I guess I'd take it.


Well, we didn't need Ben Wallace to take the mighty Heat to six games.

But I was thinking more of this sort of thing:



> So, how surprised was Danny Ainge to see Ben Wallace agree to leave the Pistons to sign with the Bulls?
> 
> ``It was a little bit surprising, but I could sort of see it coming when you saw that Ben wasn't playing in the fourth quarter of some of their playoff games," Ainge said. ``You could see right then and there that he was frustrated. And there were some issues with the coaches."


http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2006/07/09/ray_ready_to_take_best_shot/?page=3

Doug Collins has also mentioned how shocked he was to see Wallace quit on his team in the playoffs.

Just saying -- yeah, you'd think big playoff games would bring out the best in a guy. But if the diva ain't happy, ain't no one happy. Or something like that.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Next year. Even people that like Pax will say in some generic sense that he could have handled the Curry situation better. We ended up getting more back than I think Pax expected. I'll leave it at that.


Personally, I'm a pretty big proponent of this type of reasoning. People almost always use hindsight to evaluate moves. That can be quite problematic in situations where because of luck, fate, unforeseen circumstances or what have you a transaction turns out significantly worse or better than anyone expected. The one problem I see with it is that as fans, we're often unable to put ourselves in the shoes of the GM. Pax could have had some insight or knowledge that is unavailable to you and I which led him to believe the Knicks would perform terribly last season. Doubtful, but who knows.

The huge issue that I see here is that many Paxson critics - I'm not pointing to you in particular - blast Pax for the Wallace signing which was considered by most to be a major coup over the summer. Certainly, some questioned at the time and have a right to say "I told you so," but I sense that more than one poster here has dismissed the massive return brought by the draft picks in the Curry trade as dumb luck and yet castigated Pax for the Wallace signing despite being in the large majority who praised the move last summer. I find that to be rather blatant hypocrisy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> And my response is we are luxury tax hell, and it's already clear that management wasn't going to let that happen which gets back to the point of _under the constraints the team was working with_. Even if we signed both and kept Tyson, I don't think the team would be any better than it is now. We'd definitely have more balance though.


*You're just flat-out wrong about luxury tax hell. *

I happen to think you're wrong about Gooden and Harrington and Chandler not being as good as Wallace and pick-two-of-whoever-plays-pf-or-c for the bulls now.



> Or maybe it's because they realized what Atlanta realized what most of the NBA realizes is that Harrington is an awful player. He's a horrid defender, and a selfish ball-dominating player on offense. He would have been horrible for us on both ends of the court. If you could just drop Harrington on our team now then I don't think we'd have won a single game more than we have.


Golden State doesn't think so. Sorry to put a pin in that bubble.




> Draft express recently did an article on this draft. Statistically, I believe it was the 2nd weakest draft in the past 27 years so far. The #2 pick in this draft hasn't amounted to anything because the draft class has been awful.


So WHY waste $5M+ in salaries per year on players from that draft for the next 3-4 years?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Just saying -- yeah, you'd think big playoff games would bring out the best in a guy. But if the diva ain't happy, ain't no one happy. Or something like that.


Maybe, but in other years he's got jewelry to show for the effort.

Here's hoping that true _prima donna_ quittin' status doesn't kick in in year 1 of the new regime.

SACK UP BIG BEN!!!!

GET'R'DUN!!!

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG!!!!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Some1 in this thread mentioned that people are attacking the Paxson with no alternative and some came .

well here is mine .

He should have kept the 3 C's and built on it and not have tinkered so much trying to make a donut a basketball team.

that team today would have curry at center, chandler at the 4 possibly with harrington or gooden backing them up or any guy who was signed for MLE level $ over the past 2 years 

deng at the 3 with nocioni backing him him up while also getting some minutes at the 4 here and there and a backcourt of crawford kirk gordon and duhon .

to me thats a deep balanced squad , even if he had stopped with the trading of crawford the team would be much better than it is today and better poised for the future and if skiles cant get enough out of that group , then you fire him , thats what teams do .

the GM gets the talent and the coach makes it work within reason.

if skiles cant get it done , you bring in some1 who can , and if the problem is the roster , you fire the guy bringing them in.

life aint that hard , but Pax is going nowhere JR has flaws but he's a loyal guy and the fans will suffer for it.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> He should have kept the 3 C's and built on it and not have tinkered so much trying to make a donut a basketball team.


They would never have done here what they're doing in their respective cities.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> They would never have done here what they're doing in their respective cities.


now why do you think that?


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> You're just flat-out wrong about luxury tax hell.


3 years from now:
Chandler: 12 million
Hinrich: 9.5 million
Nocioni: ~7 million?
Gordon: ~ 10 million
Deng: ~ 10 million
Tyrus: 4.7 million
Thabo: 2.8 million
2007 1st: ~ 2.5 million
Gooden: ~ 8 million
Harrington: ~ 8 million
Minimum salaries for 2 more spots: ~ 1.2 million
Total: 76 million

That's without resigning Duhon, and even if you throw Nocioni off the team and replace him with a min salary guy, that is still over the tax threshold. So if you think I'm wrong then let's argue some numbers instead of you stating I'm wrong. 



> I happen to think you're wrong about Gooden and Harrington and Chandler not being as good as Wallace and pick-two-of-whoever-plays-pf-or-c for the bulls now.


First, I said one of Gooden or Harrington + Chandler vs Wallace, Duhon and the MLE. If you throw both of them in there, then you can also throw Nocioni into the mix for the Bulls as we'd have to let him go with DUhon to stay out of future tax trouble.

Gooden has been traded twice on the cheap and Al Harrington wasn't wanted back in Atlanta and was traded almost immediately from Indiana. If you want to think that those 2 guys are studs then you are free to have that opinion. 



> Golden State doesn't think so. Sorry to put a pin in that bubble.


Wow, you mean Golden State hasn't trashed the player they just acquired a few weeks ago. I'm shocked. That definitely pokes a whole in that theory. Especially considering Golden State's excellent track record of talent evaluation. Oh yeah, Golden State also shipped out close to twice the total salary as Indiana, so it stands to reason that they would take players that were not quite as desirable to get out from under the bad deals of both Dunleavy and Murphy.

However, up to you, again, if you want to say Al Harrington is a good player then you are free to your opinion.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> now why do you think that?


They needed changes of scenery.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> That's significant to me. I agree the short-run effect on the court is negligible. Except, possibly, that expectations would have been managed better because we'd expect this to be a young, growing team that would get over the hump and into the second round instead of Ben Wallace and the kids who'd be "contending".


I've already agreed that swapping out Chandler for Wallace was not a great long term move because of the potential harm 3 years from now, and Wallace's inevitable decline. My point was the move was not a travesty because I believe the team is better in the short term, and considering Chandler's behavior last year after getting inked, I would not have wanted to put my stock in him being a good player in 3 years. Now that looks more likely, whether that required a change of scenary or not who knows. 

So while I agree that our moves may have hurt us to an extent 3 years down the road, I don't consider that to be a major flaw. I'm willing to wait and see how those voids are filled over the next 3 years. I think having Harrington or Gooden on a long term deal at the price they'd have commanded if we bid would have been bad regardless of whether we traded Chandler or not.



> But yes, the key part is better in 3 years. And that is clearly significant.


The key part should be that it _might_ hurt us in 3 years. It would demand that Tyson stays healthy, motivated, and that we can't fill the void that will be created as Wallace declines. If we do fill that void or if Tyson turns it off again then we won't be hurt in 3 years.

In 3 years Harrington and Gooden will still be bad players who will have cost us way more than they are worth, I don't feel bad in the slightest about passing on those guys. Granted, I would not have been upset had we signed Gooden (or to some extent Wilcox), because I think our team would have similar upside in that scenario. I don't consider our current off season plan to be superior, I just think it's on par with anything else we could have reasonably done. I don't think the alternatives were significantly better, just different.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> 3 years from now:
> Chandler: 12 million
> Hinrich: 9.5 million
> Nocioni: ~7 million?
> ...


Subtract Tyrus and Thabo. I would have given away the picks. The draft was weak, as you conceded.

Keep Duhon.

We're right about at the LT. (LT is $65M this season (up nearly $4M over last season), it'll be $70M or more in 3 years)


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Subtract Tyrus and Thabo. I would have given away the picks. The draft was weak, as you conceded.


Seriously? I'm not a big fan of this draft, but I still think Tyrus will be better than Harrington or Gooden in 3 years neither of which are starting caliber players right now or likely to get better (though that's just my opinion). 



> Keep Duhon.
> 
> We're right about at the LT. (LT is $65M this season, it'll be $70M or more in 3 years)


We'd be at about 74-75 million in your scenario without Tyrus and Thabo and with Duhon (assuming we could get Duhon for about 3 million a year again and add in 2 more minimum salary players for Tyrus/Thabo). We might be another ~1-2 million over the 74 million mark depending if we keep our other 1st round picks.

So perhaps I overestimated the luxury tax implications a little. It would depend where the tax fell, but the actual team salary in your scenario is probably about 75 million, and I would expect (perhaps incorrectly) that we'd be in the luxury tax at that level.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

As a Memphis fan, I can honestly say I agree with John Paxson (and Jerry West). I would not have traded Deng for Pau. Not only because I think Deng will be as good eventually but because he was already a Bull. However, if I am West (and much like I said even before this whole thing started), it was Deng or no deal. In fact, I value Kirk Hinrich more than Gordon and that might be doable in the summer. However, my guess is the Bulls *will* do well enough in the playoffs that they will only tinker with the lineup and hope for a post scorer with the NY pick and well make their big move for the final solution with Ben Wallace's expiring contract. My guess is they move up in the draft to get Hawes using the NY pick and Tyrus Thomas or their 2008 pick.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

The only thing I think West screwed up was trying to trade Pau in the first place. He wanted more than he could reasonably get, and he has alienated his best player by putting him threw the trade process for 2 months. Granted, some wins next season and no one will care. West might not be back to care either. If the Grizzlies felt they could work things out with Gasol then IMO the best thing to do was tell him reinforcements are on the way next year, and to just stick with them rather than to try to trade him.

I thought the Griz might be forced to trade Gasol on the cheap, but they clearly weren't, and as such, keeping him was the right move.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Seriously? I'm not a big fan of this draft, but I still think Tyrus will be better than Harrington or Gooden in 3 years neither of which are starting caliber players right now or likely to get better (though that's just my opinion).


We'd be at about 74 million in your scenario without Tyrus and Thabo and with Duhon (assuming we could get Duhon for about 3 million a year again). 

Granted, I may have overestimated the tax implications here, but they're still definitely there.[/quote]

The tax implications are not a huge deal if you're slightly over the threshold anyhow. Consider being $1M over the threshold. You pay $1M in tax, so your paying $1M/15 players "extra" per player. About $66K each. HELLacious!!! (you call it tax cap hell).

Harrington is scoring 19 PPG on 44.4 FG%, 42.6 3pt%, 7.1 rebounds, 3.1 assists, and 1.4 steals for Golden State. He clearly sucks. For Indy he put up 15.9 PPG on 45.8 FG% and 45.8 3pt%, and 6.3 boards. He really sucks.

Thomas has a LONG way to go to be as good. Did I say LONG way? LONG LONG LONG way.

EDIT: Nice fuzzy math, BTW, $76M with rounding minus Thomas $4.7M minus Thabo $2.8M plus Duhon $3M is $71.5M.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> The tax implications are not a huge deal if you're slightly over the threshold anyhow. Consider being $1M over the threshold. You pay $1M in tax, so your paying $1M/15 players "extra" per player. About $66K each. HELLacious!!! (you call it tax cap hell).


1) We'd be 5 million over your 70 million limit with 12 players, and if we added 3 more (to have 15) then it'd be 6.8 without using the MLE or LLE for the next 3 years.

2) We're kicking off 2 lottery picks off our team to save cap money in your scenario. When you are kicking lottery picks on their rookie deals off your team to avoid paying luxury tax, then I think the term tax hell applies.



> Harrington is scoring 19 PPG on 44.4 FG%, 42.6 3pt%, 7.1 rebounds, 3.1 assists, and 1.4 steals for Golden State. He clearly sucks. For Indy he put up 15.9 PPG on 45.8 FG% and 45.8 3pt%, and 6.3 boards. He really sucks.


Yes. He does clearly suck. He has a career PER of 13.4. If you didn't know, PER is calculated every year so that the league average is exactly 15 each year. That means Harrington is below average. The fact that he's been allowed to dominate the ball on bad teams and inefficiently score points and put up meaningless stats does not make him a good player. To top off his mediocre offensive ability, he's even worse when it comes to intangibles. He's not a hustle player at all and is a defensive sieve. If you just gave us Al Harrington right now without giving up anything else, then I think the team would not be any better whatsoever. 

He would probably provide a little help at the immediate moment only because Nocioni is hurt.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> 1) We'd be 5 million over your 70 million limit with 12 players, and if we added 3 more (to have 15) then it'd be 6.8 without using the MLE or LLE for the next 3 years.
> 
> 2) We're kicking off 2 lottery picks off our team to save cap money in your scenario. When you are kicking lottery picks on their rookie deals off your team to avoid paying luxury tax, then I think the term tax hell applies.


The LT will be $80 or even $85M in 3 years. Hinrich will be 29 or 30, too..



> Yes. He does clearly suck. He has a career PER of 13.4. If you didn't know, PER is calculated every year so that the league average is exactly 15 each year. That means Harrington is below average. The fact that he's been allowed to dominate the ball on bad teams and inefficiently score points and put up meaningless stats does not make him a good player. To top off his mediocre offensive ability, he's even worse when it comes to intangibles. He's not a hustle player at all and is a defensive sieve. If you just gave us Al Harrington right now without giving up anything else, then I think the team would not be any better whatsoever.
> 
> He would probably provide a little help at the immediate moment only because Nocioni is hurt.


Sheesh. Talk about abusing statistics. His PER *this year* is 17.9. Last year was 16.7.

EDIT: Gooden's PER is 19.0 this year, last year it was 17.1. Thomas' is 12, Hinrich's 18


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> The LT will be $80 or even $85M in 3 years. Hinrich will be 29 or 30, too..


Well in your last post you just said it was going to be $70 million. So now that I've pointed out the salary will be at least $75 million in your scenario it has jumped to $80 million? I'm not sure what the luxury tax threshold will be in 5 years. Do you have any estimates that would back this up?



> Sheesh. Talk about abusing statistics. His PER this year is 17.9. Last year was 16.7.
> 
> EDIT: Gooden's PER is 19.0 this year, last year it was 17.1. Thomas' is 12, Hinrich's 18


Harrington's PER by year according to Basketball-reference.com Harrington link
6.4
10.8
10.2
14.3
12.4
14.9
14.4
16

So he's had a PER over the league average once in his career. What is worse is that Harrington is worse in all of the things that are not measured by PER. At any rate, we can agree to disagree on Harrington. As I said, if you want to believe that Harrington is a positive difference maker and would help the Bulls then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

I don't think Harrington would help us. He's historically been an inefficient, ball hogging player, who doesn't play defense or work hard on the court on offense without the ball. He's a 3/4 tweener which is our deepest role on the team, so it wouldn't be like bringing in a 4/5 average tweener who could at least help us by having a unique role. This is why I think adding Gooden to the team would have been somewhat useful despite the fact that he's also just a mediocre player who we would have had to drastically overpay to get here. At least he'd be an upgrade as a backup 4/5 with some legit height/skill which we don't really have on the roster.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

Anyway, getting back to my original point, because I don't want to be too polarizing and extreme with my opinion.

If we had added Gooden and Harrington and kept Chandler than the team wouldn't be worse than it is now. I just don't think it'd be significantly better. Hence my argument at the beginning that there were no really good choices, but just different ones which would have yielded a similar result.

Also, it's worth noting that if your luxury tax claims are accurate and the luxury tax is actually at 80-85 million then the salary cap should be about 63-68 million dollars. By not signing Gooden and Harrington to long term deals, we'll be well below the cap in the year Ben Wallace expires even if we just keep our core, and LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh will be unrestricted free agents.

Note, I personally do not believe the cap or luxury tax will grow as much as you do, so I hadn't really thought about this possibility much before.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> As a Memphis fan, I can honestly say I agree with John Paxson (and Jerry West). I would not have traded Deng for Pau. Not only because I think Deng will be as good eventually but because he was already a Bull. However, if I am West (and much like I said even before this whole thing started), it was Deng or no deal. In fact, I value Kirk Hinrich more than Gordon and that might be doable in the summer. However, my guess is the Bulls *will* do well enough in the playoffs that they will only tinker with the lineup and hope for a post scorer with the NY pick and well make their big move for the final solution with Ben Wallace's expiring contract. My guess is they move up in the draft to get Hawes using the NY pick and Tyrus Thomas or their 2008 pick.


I think both teams are probably better off not having done the trade. 

The Grizzlies don't really need Deng or whatever filler was included in the trade. The draft choice would have been nice, but essentially they would at best have been substituting a rookie center for Gasol next year, and there's really no guarantee that any of the centers in the 2007 draft will end up being better than Gasol. Gasol is a nice piece to build a team around. The team has a low salary structure next year and a great draft pick. All it needs is a new owner -- and maybe a new city.

The Bulls could have lived without Deng I suppose as well, but they've been grooming this kid for three years as a starter with Hinrich and Gordon. It would be a shame to just toss away the chemistry they've developed. Gasol would have been a nice addition, but not the immediate savior that many seemed to hope he would be. The Bulls offensive playbook would have had to be rewritten to take full advantage of his skills, and its doubtful that the team could have jelled in time for the playoffs this year.

The long term effects of the trade on the Bulls are also questionable. They would have lost probably a lottery pick, Deng and salary flexibility. One thing that became crystal clear during this trade negotiation is that Bulls management is absolutely determined to avoid the luxury tax. Gasol's increasingly expensive salary would have effectively frozen the team in its post-trade position for at least the next 2-3 seasons after this one.

I'm not convinced that the Bulls need another high quality big man to win a championship. They have Wallace (plus his future replacement Thomas), and they have the flexibility to add good, if not great big men via the draft, free agency or trades in the future without giving away one of their core young players. That was the plan before Gasol became available, and it still seems like a good one.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Anyway, getting back to my original point, because I don't want to be too polarizing and extreme with my opinion.
> 
> If we had added Gooden and Harrington and kept Chandler than the team wouldn't be worse than it is now. I just don't think it'd be significantly better. Hence my argument at the beginning that there were no really good choices, but just different ones which would have yielded a similar result.
> 
> ...


This table shows the salary cap. Luxury Tax has been $12M over this figure that past several seasons.

The past two seasons, it's gone up $10M. A reasonable estimate would be $76M at the low end.


<table id="inlinetable" align="right" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="275"><tbody><tr><th colspan="3" style="background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><center>NBA Salary Cap History</center></th> </tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"> <td style="background-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"> </td> <td style="background-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">CAP</td> <td style="background-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">AVG. SALARY</td> </tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1984-85</td><td>$3.6 million</td><td>$330,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1985-86</td><td>$4.2 million</td><td>$382,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1986-87</td><td>$4.9 million</td><td>$431,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1987-88</td><td>$6.2 million</td><td>$502,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1988-89</td><td>$7.2 million</td><td>$575,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1989-90</td><td>$9.8 million</td><td>$717,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1990-91</td><td>$11.9 million</td><td>$927,000</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1991-92</td><td>$12.5 million</td><td>$1.1 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1992-93</td><td>$14.0 million</td><td>$1.3 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1993-94</td><td>$15.1 million</td><td>$1.5 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1994-95</td><td>$15.9 million</td><td>$1.8 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1995-96</td><td>$23.0 million</td><td>$2.0 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1996-97</td><td>$24.4 million</td><td>$2.3 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1997-98</td><td>$26.9 million</td><td>$2.6 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>1998-99</td><td>$30.0 million</td><td>$3.0 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>1999-00</td><td>$34.0 million</td><td>$3.6 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>2000-01</td><td>$35.5 million</td><td>$4.2 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>2001-02</td><td>$42.5 million</td><td>$4.5 million</td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>2002-03</td><td>$40.27 million</td><td>$4.546 million </td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>2003-04</td><td>$43.84 million</td><td>$4.917 million </td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>2004-05</td><td>$43.87 million</td><td>$4.9 million </td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(236, 236, 236);" valign="top"> <td>2005-06</td><td>$49.5 million</td><td>$5 million </td></tr> <tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" valign="top"><td>2006-07</td><td>$53.135 million</td><td>$5.215 million</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

It's worth noting that the cap has been relatively stagnant from 2001-2 to 2004-5.

The big jump from 04/5 to 05/06 was due to the change in the collective bargaining agreement where the cap was raised as a percentage of BRI as a concession to lower the maximum raise and maximum length salaries. Before that CBA change, the cap had moved up 1 million dollars over the previous 4 years. The vast majority of the increase in luxury tax is due to the new CBA and not increased revenues of basketball, so I don't think your estimate will necessarily carry out forward.

This past year there was obviously a big jump in BRI causing the increase in salary cap. I'm not sure whether a big increase in BRI is expected over the next 4 years, this inevitably gets back largely to how the TV contracts are structured and if they are going into bigger deals as time goes on or whether they are flat, declining, and ratings etc.. I would not expect large jumps in the salary cap over the next 3-4 years, but clearly over time that cap will continue to rise with inflation. We could very well have a big cap increase if new TV deals or marketing deals of some type are coming online that give a predetermined boost. I'm just not that familiar with the NBA business plan to know if that's happening.

However, you can break it down into 2 basic scenarios:
A larger salary cap means that instead of having Harrington, Gooden, and Chandler on huge deals, we'll have room for a max contract with the best unrestricted free agent class in the NBA since the advent of restricted free agency. That makes our careful cap planning and refusal to overpay for average players an even better decision than it would have been if we were just threatened to be in the luxury tax.

A smaller cap means that we'd have to pay luxury tax or we'd have to let go of other decent players to avoid paying luxury tax. In the end, it's basically never a good idea to overpay mediocre players. 

If I thought a Chandler, Harrington, Gooden front court would have been the answer then I would have pushed in that direction too. I just don't. You apparently do. That's fair, I can understand why you'd think so even though I disagree.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> It's worth noting that the cap has been relatively stagnant from 2001-2 to 2004-5.
> 
> The big jump from 04/5 to 05/06 was due to the change in the collective bargaining agreement where the cap was raised as a percentage of BRI as a concession to lower the maximum raise and maximum length salaries. Before that CBA change, the cap had moved up 1 million dollars over the previous 4 years.
> 
> ...


International basketball has a wee bit to do with the increases.

People from Argentina have a reason to root for the bulls now.

Yao is extremely popular world-wide, tho China alone has a middle class that's bigger than the entire US population.

&c

So... the new paxson defense is "wait until 3 years from now when we may be able to sign a RFA from what may or may not be a great class" ?

Neat!


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> International basketball has a wee bit to do with the increases.
> 
> People from Argentina have a reason to root for the bulls now.
> 
> Yao is extremely popular world-wide, tho China alone has a middle class that's bigger than the entire US population.


That might have a wee bit to do with it. A lot of other factors go into it as well I'm sure. I don't pretend to know what everything involved is.

However ~50% of the increase over the past 6 years is due to the new CBA. Outside of the new CBA the salary cap has increased about 5.5 million dollars over that time. That's about 11% over the starting cap over 6 years during that period without the CBA change. If you project out another 11% increase over the next 6 years then the salary cap would grow to about 59 million and the luxury tax would go up to about 71 million.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> That might have a wee bit to do with it. A lot of other factors go into it as well I'm sure. I don't pretend to know what everything involved is.
> 
> However ~60% of the increase over the past 6 years is due to the new CBA.


The LT cap would have been significantly higher under the old CBA, if I read this right. 

http://www.nba.com/news/cba_summary_050804.html

"A team tax trigger will be set at 61% of BRI (the league-wide tax trigger for 2004-05 was 63.3%). The tax will be in effect each season, and will apply to any team with a payroll that exceeds the tax trigger."

Yet

"For the 2005-06 season, the tax level is set at $61.7 million."

And it's $65M for 2006-2007.

The math indicates it's BRI increasing year over year, and in a big way since the new CBA.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> "For the 2005-06 season, the tax level is set at $61.7 million."
> 
> And it's $65M for 2006-2007.
> 
> The math indicates it's BRI increasing year over year, and in a big way since the new CBA.


There was a large BRI increase from last year to this year. My point is over the last 6 years that's the _only_ large increase. I'm not sure what caused the increase and increasing BRI will be a trend or not.

To me it doesn't really matter much. If the luxury tax and cap are higher, then we'll potentially have our core signed with max cap room to persue LeBron James.

If the tax is lower, then we will not be in the luxury tax by overpaying mediocre, non difference makers, 8+ million a year.

It's never a good idea to take on bad contracts unless you are on the cusp of winning.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> So... the new paxson defense is "wait until 3 years from now when we may be able to sign a RFA from what may or may not be a great class" ?


1) It's not RFAs, it's UFAs. 
2) It will be the best UFA class since the invent of the new CBA, not may be, it will be.
3) I didn't realize that there was a Paxson defense. You seem to have in your head polarized it into Pro-Paxson and Anti-Paxson factions instead of just looking at what is there and what could have been there and discussing that.

If LaMarcus Aldridge turned into a stud, then I'd have been pissed.
If Gooden, Wilcox, Nene, Joel, Nazr, or any other FA PF turned into a stud, and we missed out, then I would be pissed.

I'm more than content to be pissed at Paxson if he legitimately leaves a really good alternative on the table. However, that was not the cast this past year, and it hasn't been the case yet in his career as the Bulls GM. He has made his share of mistakes as GM, but those have all been minor without significant consequence. I think this off season will qualify under that same rules. There may have been some mistakes, but they've been minor, and the opportunity cost was small because the primary alternatives were not good.

As a side note, I think it's worth considering the Bulls real willingness to spend money. The Bulls are clearly going to maintain a profit over victory mentality going forward. You can see this in the moves they've made. I don't like that, but I've accepted it. The Bulls basically signed Wallace and dumped Chandler as a method of using our cap space without really using it, and replacing Chandler with Wallace giving us the appearance of making a big acquisition when we made a minor upgraded and avoided about 100 million in future salary commitments over the next 5 years if we had used our cap space. Quite frankly, I think that sucks. However, these are constraints on the GM placed by the owners. Not every franchise gets to behave like the Knicks. 

I would hope that the profit over winning mentality only exists when it comes to minor enhancements, and that we wouldn't let go of a really good player over money, but honestly, I can no longer even be sure of that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> They needed changes of scenery.


now that makes no real sense without going into depth , is it the berto center, they need not to practice there anymore ...bad memories, their homes, not enough Feng Shui, is it the UC the backgrounds to far back to be a decent improving player?

change of scenery is a cliche' to me for incompetent developers of talent which is a blame of skiles and the coaching staff and ultimately the guy who brought him/them in (Paxson).


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> now that makes no real sense without going into depth , is it the berto center, they need not to practice there anymore ...bad memories, their homes, not enough Feng Shui, is it the UC the backgrounds to far back to be a decent improving player?
> 
> change of scenery is a cliche' to me for incompetent developers of talent which is a blame of skiles and the coaching staff and ultimately the guy who brought him/them in (Paxson).



It makes total sense to me.

I have seen it in bands, work, and even in families. Some people just won't get off their butts and make an effort in life as long as things are handed to them and are comforable.

Sometimes people have to change jobs, bands, whatever or even move out of the house to be productive and effective members of society. Regardless of who is running the show. 

Sometimes people are also in situations that aren't the best for them and it's neither sides fault.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> It makes total sense to me.
> 
> I have seen it in bands, work, and even in families. Some people just won't get off their butts and make an effort in life as long as things are handed to them and are comforable.
> 
> ...


it seems to me that tyson never had an issue with his work ethic , he just didn't do much when he had a contract negotiation on the way , which is standard stuff for obvious reasons (see willie green) for most of his tenure he was a very hard worker according to most associated with the team.

curry was in shape and working hard at the end of his tenure as a bull, it seems he just matured, it takes time with some people...and it was soon enough for the bulls to notice.

crawford set a berto center record for workout sessions over the summer and he came back from his ACL tear months ahead of schedule...I dont think that work ethic was the problem with them or at least it shouldn't have been.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> it seems to me that tyson never had an issue with his work ethic , he just didn't do much when he had a contract negotiation on the way , which is standard stuff for obvious reasons (see willie green) for most of his tenure he was a very hard worker according to most associated with the team.
> 
> curry was in shape and working hard at the end of his tenure as a bull, it seems he just matured, it takes time with some people...and it was soon enough for the bulls to notice.
> 
> crawford set a berto center record for workout sessions over the summer and he came back from his ACL tear months ahead of schedule...I dont think that work ethic was the problem with them or at least it shouldn't have been.


I agree that Tyson was a hard worker and could have fit in with the Bulls, and probably would have, if they had not felt that Wallace was more of what they were looking for. I thought getting rid of Chandler was a good move based on redundancy with Wallace (Both not good offensive players). Also, Ty seemed to lack toughness, an enforcer type, which is what Wallace is.

It's too bad for Ty that he had such a HORRIBLE year last year. If he even had a middling sesason things may have been different.

To be honest I think they could have kept Curry and had him along side Big Ben and it might have worked well. But being from Boston and seeing the whole Reggie Lewis thing go down I understood why they didn't feel it was a good idea to let Curry play with the heart condition. 

Although his D and rebounding and ability to pass out of the block and double-teams was and still is a determinent.

Crawford was NOT what they were looking for IMO, and I for one don't miss him a bit.

In NY both Curry and Crawford get to play regardless of wins and losses and it shows in their stats. But 2 years of Curry and Crawford and they are still probably not a Playoff Team in the worst division in a crappy Conference.

I don't really know NOK's team makeup to know who TY has around him and how they play to know for sure, but I would guess he's got solid players around him that compensate for his deficiencies. Again NOK is still a lottery team.

I think that if anything Reinsdorf should be blamed somewhat. Many thought Krause had an unhealthy love for the draft pick over established talent and yet his replacement seems to have the same outlook. So it may be the Boss, not just the employee.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> it seems to me that tyson never had an issue with his work ethic , he just didn't do much when he had a contract negotiation on the way , which is standard stuff for obvious reasons (see willie green) for most of his tenure he was a very hard worker according to most associated with the team.
> 
> curry was in shape and working hard at the end of his tenure as a bull, it seems he just matured, it takes time with some people...and it was soon enough for the bulls to notice.
> 
> crawford set a berto center record for workout sessions over the summer and he came back from his ACL tear months ahead of schedule...I dont think that work ethic was the problem with them or at least it shouldn't have been.


These players had one thing in common. Year after year they refused to work out at the Berto in the summer. Every fall they came into camp either out of shape (Curry) or having failed to work on their strength training (Crawford and Chandler). In short, they goofed off in the summer.

My guess is that this behavior impacted Paxsons attitude toward each of them. It's noteworthy that each of the present core (with the excusable exception of Nocioni) spent a lot of time at the Berto every summer they were here. The same is true of the two rookies. 

If you've ever been an employer, I think you'd understand why you tend to value people who are visibly making an effort to improve their output every day over those who just talk a strong game and go on reputation and BS -- as if you were an idiot.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> These players had one thing in common. Year after year they refused to work out at the Berto in the summer. Every fall they came into camp either out of shape (Curry) or having failed to work on their strength training (Crawford and Chandler). In short, they goofed off in the summer.
> 
> My guess is that this behavior impacted Paxsons attitude toward each of them. It's noteworthy that each of the present core (with the excusable exception of Nocioni) spent a lot of time at the Berto every summer they were here. The same is true of the two rookies.
> 
> If you've ever been an employer, I think you'd understand why you tend to value people who are visibly making an effort to improve their output every day over those who just talk a strong game and go on reputation and BS -- as if you were an idiot.


really I didn't know not working out in the berto center was an offense , how many bulls work out at the berto center ?



PJ Brown was he there ?

i dont see him adding anything new to his game and from what i've seen he needs something , he's not very good anymore.

who exactly has to be there?

tyson has put on at least 20 pounds of muscle in his time as a bull. he doesn't look any bigger now than he did as a bull and he's doing just fine.

curry came in his final year as a bull at 283, he doesn't play at that weight anymore because it was a dumb requirement which actually inhibited his ability to be a post player as his play as a knick currently shows, he is probably at 300-310 now but in shape at that weight, playing 40 min. regularly with no problem and wearing down during the 4th quarter.

with curry paxson didn't seem to know what he was talking about and I remember Tim grover saying as much , that the 285 pound requirement was too low for curry to be in optimal shape. you have a 21 year old , he's not going to have stamina issues if you just leave him alone and let him work , but the bulls didn't want to do that or trust the best guy in the business in grover ...so now they have tyrus thomas who will be under 285 with no problem every year.

crawford when he came back from his acl tear weighed 195 over 20 pounds gained , but he couldn't keep it on , not because he didn't work out , (in fact he lost weight when he set the berto workout record) but because his body just isn't built to keep that kind of weight on when coupled with playing basketball.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> There was a large BRI increase from last year to this year. My point is over the last 6 years that's the _only_ large increase. I'm not sure what caused the increase and increasing BRI will be a trend or not.
> 
> To me it doesn't really matter much. If the luxury tax and cap are higher, then we'll potentially have our core signed with max cap room to persue LeBron James.
> 
> ...


I seem to recall reading a Dan Rosenbaum piece that attributed the one year BRI jump to a rather large, one time lump sum paid out by Fox (to tehh Lakers?).

No link -- just my recollection, FWIW.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I seem to recall reading a Dan Rosenbaum piece that attributed the one year BRI jump to a rather large, one time lump sum paid out by Fox (to tehh Lakers?).
> 
> No link -- just my recollection, FWIW.


I do remember that aswell, I think that was dating back to the signing of the previous CBA.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Tim Grover kick Eddy Curry out of his camp due to lack of commitment? Cuury has been a fat under-achiever virtually ever year of his career. Plus, Curry can score, but is still a poor rebounder, and is not a good assist man.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I seem to recall reading a Dan Rosenbaum piece that attributed the one year BRI jump to a rather large, one time lump sum paid out by Fox (to tehh Lakers?).
> 
> No link -- just my recollection, FWIW.


BRI jumped two straight years.

EDIT:
My recollection is that the NBA started NBA TV and that it is getting onto more and more cable systems. This isn't a typical cable deal - the NBA owns the channel. This is just one obvious reason why the league's revenues would go up. There's XM radio, too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

LIBlue said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Tim Grover kick Eddy Curry out of his camp due to lack of commitment? Cuury has been a fat under-achiever virtually ever year of his career. Plus, Curry can score, but is still a poor rebounder, and is not a good assist man.


actually i believe it was because he was hit in the eye with a pager and stopped working with grover for a bit , grover then kicked him out of his camp.

he was back in camp pretty soon thereafter.


----------

