# Pax Sucks as a GM....



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

When it comes to trade's.Sorry that just my opinion,but he 1 of the best when it come's to scouting and drafting.Which is why i think that he will stay pat this whole season and won't make any move's because he sux's at making trades.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

we dont need trades. we're ok. since PJ is out that gives TT more PT and same for VK.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> When it comes to trade's.Sorry that just my opinion,but he 1 of the best when it come's to scouting and drafting.Which is why i think that he will stay pat this whole season and won't make any move's because he sux.


Just because he doesn't make specific trades doesn't mean he sucks as a GM. Its the GM's that get sucked into making trade unnesscarily are the GM's that suck. We don't need constant changing of this team, we need some consitentcy within the team to build from. To add a high level player as A.I and to have to teach him and to relearn plays to get him to play within the system(not knowing whether he would buy into the system in the first place) is all too time consuming.

He won't make trades because he sucks? What a lame arguement.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

It could be argued that trading Chandler was unnecessary. 

It could be argued that trading JR Smith was unnecessary.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

what i find disturbing about this is that Pax actually appears to own a suck


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DengNabbit said:


> what i find disturbing about this is that Pax actually appears to own a suck


And his suck evidently owns a preposition.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Pax has not made great trades, and so far one could argue that he isnt a very good evaluator of young talent currently in the NBA.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> Pax has not made great trades, and *so far one could argue that he isnt a very good evaluator of young talent currently in the NBA.*


Well, then go ahead and make that argument. I'm interested.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DengNabbit said:


> what i find disturbing about this is that Pax actually appears to own a suck


??


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Must.Not.Post.In.Worthless.Thread.

Ah, I can't help myself.:jump:


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> Well, then go ahead and make that argument. I'm interested.


JR Smith and Tyson Chandler 
combined stats
23 ppg
14 rpg
30 EFF rating

If Pax traded away Chandler just to sign Wallace then that is a real bad move. 

Not giving JR Smith a chance to make this team was a huge mistake.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Penguin! said:


> And his suck evidently owns a preposition.


I'm not sure the suck owns a preposition so much as *the kign!* left an s off of as.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

I'd like own a preposition one day. You have to aim high, my mother told me.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Wynn said:


> I'm not sure the suck owns a preposition so much as *the kign!* left an s off of as.


So the a$$ owned by Paxon's Suck is a GM?

Is he a good GM?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

One can only a$$ume!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

One thing's for certain.

Pax's trades have smelled like A$$


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> One thing's for certain.
> 
> Pax's trades have smelled like A$$


You can't fault all his trades. 

The Curry trade was nessacery, no matter what people think and their emotional attachments towards Curry, is the simple fact that with all the turmoil Curry had to be traded. In hindsight, we got rid of one young developing big for another young developing big. It may not look like an even trade of Curry and TT but only time will tell with TT's growth as a player. Which i personally think will be alot faster than Currys development as a player.

The JR Smith trade was done, purely because of character. He has a certain value that he wants to sustain and uphold within the team so he traded a young player who has a questionable character. So what? Sure, JR is scoring but what else is he doing? Many players come through the nba that can score and would love to jack up shots, swing players arn't the problem in this league.

The trade of Jalen for A.D was probably his best trade, everyone blasted that trade left right and center, but it ended up being a masterful trade in every regard. He found a player that fitted what he wanted the character of his team to be like and A.D delivered with professionalism(for the most part) and leadership. Talent to talent trade, that was very lopsided, but in terms of character and other traits we got the best of that trade by far.

Paxson also got Marty for virtually a player that had no chance of being on the roster. Sure, Marty is young and still away from developing but his a big man who has skills and potential to be a contributer in the long run. 

Don't forget about Kryhapa. We wanted TT in the draft all along yet, we got a very good role player whilst also getting the player we wanted most, i think thats what is considered a good trade.

I think everyone is going crazy because Paxson is not "openly" going for A.I and the success of JR Smith in denver. But A.I is a player that needs alot of attention, who dominates the ball and the players around him. JR Smith is in a position to jack shots up at will without worrying about defense, so his in a situation that suites him. 

Sure, i agree that Paxson hasn't made any adventerous or "sexy" trades, but his made safe trades, and smart trades, in terms of investment and reliablity. You can't fault that as a fan or a stock holder. I just don't agree with the people who think he stinks as a GM just because he doesn't make certain trades, or doesn't talk with the media about potential trades that his open to.

[edit] On another note, Paxson is the GM not the owner. Paxson may have targeted big names or have plenty of other trade ideas, but in the end he is not the owner. If anything, Paxson being the GM is a mediator between two owners, that give the go aheads to "potential" trades.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> One thing's for certain.
> 
> Pax's trades have smelled like A$$


Luol Deng is pretty good.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> Pax has not made great trades, and so far one could argue that he isnt a very good evaluator of young talent currently in the NBA.


Trading Rose's longer contract for AD's shorter one? Good move.

Trading Crawford and his 38%FG away? Good move.

Trading Chandler and his $10M since we had Ben Wallace to allow us to resign Kirk, Noc, Deng and not be in the luxury tax region? Good move.

Trading J.R. Smith? Who cares. If he stayed a Bull for this season, he would have been a free agent at year's end anyways and not played more than Khryapa minutes.

Trading Curry + Tyrus + maybe Oden / Durant / Noah / Wright? Great move.

Drafting Tyrus, Thabo? Both top 8 rotation players.

Trading draft pick (21st overall (Nate Robinson) from Suns for Luol Deng. Awesome trade and considered to be a GREAT TRADE.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> Luol Deng is pretty good.


Yes, Deng also. That trade ended up being pretty good also didn't it?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> Luol Deng is pretty good.


I totally agree. But some people are here magically forget trades like Luol Deng for the 21st pick in the 2005 draft when its convenient to support their arguments of "Pax's trades smell bad". I guess they mean trading of the 3 C's who people are still in love with for some strange reason, when we have better players to replace them.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> JR Smith and Tyson Chandler
> combined stats
> 23 ppg
> 14 rpg
> ...


Ben Wallace & Ben Gordon (who would replace J.R. Smith and Tyson Chandler total minutes)
23 ppg
12 rpg
27 EFF Rating
2.0 steals per game (JR & Tyson 1.6 steals per game)
1.9 blocks per game (JR & Tyson 1.4 blocks per game)
4.8 assists per game (JR & Tyson 2.7 assists per game)

Ben Gordon >>> defender J.R. Smith.
Ben Wallace >>> defender Tyson Chandler.
Ben Wallace >>>>> leader than Tyson Chandler.
Ben Wallace >> offensive player (passing, etc) than Tyson Chandler.
Ben Wallace > offensive rebounder than Tyson Chandler.
Ben Wallace > block shot artist than Tyson Chandler.

Still don't see how we could add J.R. and Tyson to our team right now? Who do we sit? Ben Gordon? Nocioni? Hinrich? Wallace?

Don't we have too many players right now? Good players like Khryapa, Sweetney, Thabo and Tyrus can hardly get minutes.

J.R. Smith + Tyson Chandler = Zero Intangibles
Ben Wallace + Ben Gordon = Extremely High Intangibles

The raw numbers are the same. Ben and Ben are better defenders by a landslide. Ben and Ben have more to offer as far as leadership, intangibles, teamwork.

Sounds like we kept the right pair.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Ben Wallace & Ben Gordon (who would replace J.R. Smith and Tyson Chandler total minutes)
> 23 ppg
> 12 rpg
> 27 EFF Rating
> ...


there are so many problems with this post.

1) it doesn't take into account chandler progression and ben wallace regression. this movement isn't even theortical. were seeing it now. 

2) it takes unmeasurable attributes like "leadership" and "intangibles" and passes them off at facts. for instance we have no idea what wallace does in the locker room, by many accouts he is quiet and moody.

3) it fumbles degrees of things, ben wallace may be a better offensive player, but certainly not much better. same thing with the comparsion of gordon and smiths defense.

4) it doesn't mention that we gave away jr smith for nothing and assumes that its a gordon v. smith thing. you can smith minutes from a variety of places...not just out of gordons minutes.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

He's a good GM over all because of his scouting and drafting history.Still i have to question his ability to make a good trade.Think back to his very 1st trade the jalen rose deal,If u look at it was a clear give away deal.Very lop sided IMO,and *it wasn't for trading rose it was for trading away donny mar*.Why trade him then, if at the draft u could have traded him to the rap's and gotten d-wade.Yes it opened some cap,but it did set us back a few more year's.
Then last year we had to trade EC for something,i guess.So we got an ok deal from the knick's,and got a good trading chip in Tim Thomas,what happen's he get's free money from us,and goes to the sun's and almost get's them to the final's.And what do we have to show for him nothing.I think if pax's was smarter at making trade's he would have used TT to get us a big men so desperatly needed,and maybe that big could have allowed us to slow down shaq in the playoff's and had us beat them MAYBE.Then u ask who is that mystery team.Well i came up with 2,clips,sonic's.Both have plenty of big's to spare and could have used TT.Why didn't pax's try to trade with them only he know's.

Then this year he gives away J.R Smith,for nothing but 2nd round draft pick and howard elsey.I would have gotten a 1st round pick maybe protected and howard elsey,or 1 of their many big's instead of elsey.Now we look dumb for giving away J.R Smith,for nothing to show.

So to me Pax's track record when it comes to trades is very poor.Which is why i think he won't get into this A.I deal to use it to improve our team.
I think we should try to get into it somehow and get us a big man,and yes we can do so without giving up Ben or any1 of our core guy's,and just use P.J and Sweet's instead.

Now i've heard Troy Murphy's name, so y dont we get him or Ike Diogu from GS(both upgrade's over p.j and sweet's),and then allow the GS warrior's to get A.I and the 6er's get what they're looking 4 in expering contract's from us and young player's from GS.I think everyone would be happy,and we would have a bigger front line and deep bench with putting noc back into the bench with Ben G.And I feel be able to beat the best team's in the league.

But,No pax's won't do anything and just stay in his comfort zone and stick to waiting for the draft to improve our team.While this roster again loses in the 1st round of the playoff's again, due to it's size issues and whatever else reason.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

I guess with Smith I think of it as a non-issue. Would you rather have Smith than either Hinrich or Gordon? i just don't think he'd play here. I guess he could rplace Duhon, moving Hinrich to full-time PG and Gordon to part time PG. I just don't think JR would even outplay Duhon for a spot in the rotation....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> He's a good GM over all because of his scouting and drafting history.Still i have to question his ability to make a good trade.Think back to his very 1st trade the jalen rose deal,If u look at it was a clear give away deal.


I consider that one of the best and most important trades in the history of the Chicago Bulls' organization.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



theyoungsrm said:


> there are so many problems with this post.
> 
> 1) it doesn't take into account chandler progression and ben wallace regression. this movement isn't even theortical. were seeing it now.
> 
> ...


QUOTE=theyoungsrm]there are so many problems with this post.

1) it doesn't take into account chandler progression and ben wallace regression. this movement isn't even theortical. were seeing it now. 

2) it takes unmeasurable attributes like "leadership" and "intangibles" and passes them off at facts. for instance we have no idea what wallace does in the locker room, by many accouts he is quiet and moody.

3) it fumbles degrees of things, ben wallace may be a better offensive player, but certainly not much better. same thing with the comparsion of gordon and smiths defense.

4) it doesn't mention that we gave away jr smith for nothing and assumes that its a gordon v. smith thing. you can smith minutes from a variety of places...not just out of gordons minutes.[/QUOTE]

1) proof of progression or regression? chandler is the same as last year, only playing more minutes.
2) intangibles? wallace was the centerpiece of a championship team. vets like billups, hamilton, prince, wallace cried foul when he left. wallace >>>> leader than chandler. chandler has no leadership ability whatsoever.
3) i can agree that chandler = wallace offensively and gordon = jr smith defensively...or close in any regards...like i said, ben+ben = chandler+smith on paper. off paper, ben and ben are far ahead.
4) "you can smith minutes from a variet of places"...okay where?

your response seems to be more vague than my post...you provide nothing solid to go off of...

Ben + Ben provide the Chicago Bulls with a better chance of winning night in and night out, better chance of winning in the playoffs, better chance of winning a championship.

JR + Tyson are good role players who are getting better. But they are still relatively immature and not ready to offer leadership and contribute to team chemistry. We have had enough of this type of immature player on our teams.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> Now i've heard Troy Murphy's name, so y dont we get him or Ike Diogu from GS(both upgrade's over p.j and sweet's)


Wait. You are saying Pax is a bad GM and that adding Troy Murphy and his horrible contract would make him a better GM? Wow....

You make it sound like making moves for the sake of making moves makes a good GM. If that was true, Isiah would be executive of the year every single year. Sometimes not making a potentially bad move is the best move of all.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> I consider that one of the best and most important trades in the history of the Chicago Bulls' organization.


Agreed. Jalen Rose is still under his huge contract this season. So we wouldn't have been able to sign Ben Wallace.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Wait. You are saying Pax is a bad GM and that adding Troy Murphy and his horrible contract would make him a better GM? Wow....
> 
> You make it sound like making moves for the sake of making moves makes a good GM. If that was true, Isiah would be executive of the year every single year. Sometimes not making a potentially bad move is the best move of all.



Well i'm not sure how bad Troy Murphy contract is to be honest,but i don't think it's that bad,and i rarely even hear that it's bad.And hay remember u cann't get production for cheap,and he's a very productive player and solid big man that can shoot,and reb the ball,and blk a few shoot's.And would be our tallest player or 2nd behind andy.Now i'm not saying we should be making deal's all crazy,but we should try.

Anyway Troy is an upgrade,over any big we have,plus we would be that much deeper and allow noc to be a role player of the bench and put him at his natural postion at the sf.So if i where pax's i would get try to get troy or IKE DIOGU,(who i also mentioned) he could be an instant post threat and reb for us that we could start or play more often then sweet's,becuase he about 40lbs lighter.


And last year we needed to make a deal for a big baddly and didn't and i feel it hurt us until the end when we got hot for some reason,only to lose to the heat thanks to our lack of size.An issue we could have and should have taken care of during the season.Esp with the expering contract of Tim Thomas who we gave away for free.We should have gotten something for him.To me that's bad business and poor GM's to give away something so valuable in today's nba,and expering contract with a high base.Those are worth as much as any star player sometime's more.

So yes we should look to get Troy.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> Well i'm not sure how bad Troy Murphy contract is to be honest,but i don't think it's that bad,and i rarely even hear that it's bad.And hay remember u cann't get production for cheap,and he's a very productive player and solid big man that can shoot,and reb the ball,and blk a few shoot's.And would be our tallest player or 2nd behind andy.Now i'm not saying we should be making deal's all crazy,but we should try.
> 
> Anyway Troy is an upgrade,over any big we have,plus we would be that much deeper and allow noc to be a role player of the bench and put him at his natural postion at the sf.So if i where pax's i would get try to get troy or IKE DIOGU,(who i also mentioned) he could be an instant post threat and reb for us that we could start or play more often then sweet's,becuase he about 40lbs lighter.
> 
> ...


$50M for the next 5 years for a 11 ppg, 6 rpg player. I'd rather have Eddy Curry for that price. That's a good price for a 35 year old fifth starter on the Cubs, but not for our team. Next.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> Esp with the expering contract of Tim Thomas who we gave away for free.We should have gotten something for him.To me that's bad business and poor GM's to give away something so valuable in today's nba,and expering contract with a high base.


Where do you think Paxson got most of the salary cap space to sign Ben Wallace in free agency?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> I consider that one of the best and most important trades in the history of the Chicago Bulls' organization.


Goodbye 30 wins, hello 40 wins!

Hello to *Wynn!* too


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> *$50M for the next 5 years for a 11 ppg, 6 rpg player. *
> 
> 
> That's just this year.He's avg at least 14ppg and *10 reb* per game before this season the last 2 season.that's not bad for today's nba big's,to pay some1 like that 10 mil a season.I think nene is getting paid way more then that and he's yet to avg at least 10 ppg more then once and even avg 10 reb his entire career.So yes i'd take Troy Murphy,who can also get better he's not that old,and would fit fine into this season here.Again u tell half the story on a argument.Please tell the whole story and not just ur story as u tend to do.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Here even the 6er's want Murphy too in this iverson deal.Why cann't we try to get him.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/43731/20061213/six_teams_still_interested_in_iverson/


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Another huge night from future NBA 1st teamer J.R. Smith.

18 minutes, 0-5 FG, 2 points, Denver loses by 29 points.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Another huge night from future NBA 1st teamer J.R. Smith.
> 
> 18 minutes, 0-5 FG, 2 points, Denver loses by 29 points.


Ouch. That'll put a serious dent in his ~18PPG, ~47% FG, and 41% 3pt


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Ouch. That'll put a serious dent in his ~18PPG, ~47% FG, and 41% 3pt


Zing!


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Ouch. That'll put a serious dent in his ~18PPG, ~47% FG, and 41% 3pt


Ouch, we could really use somebody to fill those numbers up for us. Wish we had such a dominant first option scorer like that. Where could we find somebody like that?!?!??!

Maybe Denver will let us have the great JR Smith back and maybe let us borrow Carmelo to draw double teams to let JR be wide open every five seconds.

If Pax is so stupid for trading him since we have a great guard rotation, then New Orleans must be the biggest idiots in the history of the world, because they actually need an elite shooting guard.

BTW, still yet to hear from any JR lovers how he would have fit into our rotation with Kirk, Duhon and Gordon already here? And how Skiles would have found JR 35 minutes a night.

Man...gotta go recover from that huge burn.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Ouch, we could really use somebody to fill those numbers up for us. Wish we had such a dominant first option scorer like that. Where could we find somebody like that?!?!??!
> 
> Maybe Denver will let us have the great JR Smith back and maybe let us borrow Carmelo to draw double teams to let JR be wide open every five seconds.
> 
> ...


 Pax made a mistake by trading away this guy, alot of you guys need to just admit that he made a mistake and move on. I dont know why so many people defend everything Pax does. Hes a good GM, even good GM's make bad moves. 

But I would be hippocritical because I cant let go the fact that he would rather have Adrian Griffin over JR.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> Pax made a mistake by trading away this guy, alot of you guys need to just admit that he made a mistake and move on. I dont know why so many people defend everything Pax does. Hes a good GM, even good GM's make bad moves.
> 
> But I would be hippocritical because I cant let go the fact that he would rather have Adrian Griffin over JR.


Griffin is a player who is happy to be the 10th man, good practice player and not fuss about minutes. He rebounds, plays defense, good team player and provides leadership. JR provides none of these things. Can't see how JR replaces Griff?????

When JR arrived on the Bulls his value around the league was about as much as a bag of balls. Why didn't NO trade him for a first rounder? Because he was a bad apple, bad team player, immature, no defense gunner. His own team that drafted didn't even play him for some reason.

The only reason JR has value now is he has shown his skills and matured while playing 35 minutes a night. We don't have 35 minutes a night to raise JR's value. Therefore JR increasing his value on a Bulls team that is trying to win a championship is IMPOSSIBLE.

Our team is about chemistry, sacrifice, ball movement, defense, team unity. JR doesn't fit any of those things so his value to our team was none, as assessed correctly by Skiles and Paxson.

JR is a black hole who averages 1.6 assists per game. If you watch our team, we pass the ball. Alot. Every player. We don't have an assist first point guard, so everybody needs to move the ball to find the best shot. JR does not do this.

Another thing you might notice is JR doesn't play a lick of defense. We are a defense first team if you hadn't noticed. Gordon plays average to above average defense. JR doesn't fit.

So you, and every other JR lover, assume that the following would (should have) happened:

1. JR Smith plays 35 minutes a night
2. Ben Gordon is benched
3. JR Smith plays no defense and Skiles is okay with that
4. JR Smith never passes the ball and shoots and shoots and Skiles is okay with that
5. After 20 games, his value increases to a first rounder. Who cares about winning at this point?
6. We trade JR Smith for the first rounder everybody wants for him and we bring back the benched Ben Gordon for him.
7. Our first round pick Thabo sits and doesn't play at all.

NBA is all about points and shooting. We might as well be the 1980's Nuggets. We could have JR play SF for us and maybe we could pick up Ricky Davis while we are at it. Eddy Curry could be our center.

JR Smith was a mistake by Paxson. Hahahahahahaha. Right. Still don't see any place for him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

does any1 ever wonder what it could be like if instead of defending Pax's "play it safe way " he swung for the fences for once ....

an example instead of trading Jamal for nothing that is still on the roster and those still in the league are on their last legs ....how about keeping him and trading the 3rd and 7th pick and move up 


i have to believe that cap games aside a trio of tyson eddy and either okafor or dwight howard would be a dominant group by now....unless skiles finds a way to mess it up (one would have to assume the 7th pick would move you up more than one spot and it would be howard who was in most minds the best choice)

thats an interior !

on the perimeter you still have kirk, jamal , nocioni, duhon and any guy you can add over the last 2 offseasons with the MLE within reason (bonzi wells , mike james , radmonivic , mike finley to name some off the top of my head but i'm sure there are better options plus you still have the 2006 pick to play with) hell you could even still have jalen and donyell although it appears they wouldn't play much today with this group.

i dunno it seems to me that might have been better than trading off good talented 22-24 year olds for scraps and of course picking up 37 year olds


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Why John Paxson should put away the dress, and get some balls:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/061213

This can be the bargain we need. Stop waiting for KG. We will overpay IF he becomes available. I hope AI goes to Minny if we can't get him. I do not want to overpay for KG only to have him lead us to a 2nd round and never to a championship. He couldn't do it with Spree and Cassell. TMac and KG are the same, star players who will never lead their team to the finals. 

You put AI here at the expense of Ben Gordon, you got a championship ready team. Wallace and AI will want to, and CAN produce for another 3-4 years. Thats enough for another dynasty.

Pax, its your call. Be content making the playoffs year after year, or take a risk for once.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Griffin is a player who is happy to be the 10th man, good practice player and not fuss about minutes. He rebounds, plays defense, good team player and provides leadership. JR provides none of these things. Can't see how JR replaces Griff?????


 Hate to break this to you, but guys who are great practice guys dont win you championships unless you have a superstar on your team. The Bulls have none. Griffin provides abosolutely nothing to this team, nothing. As for leadership, if we are still a team that needs old good for nothing vets for "leadership" then we might as well forget about winning an NBA Championship with this group. The leaders should be Kirk Hinrich and the coaching staff and thats about it. This team is old enough to know how to act and work like pro's. 



lougehrig said:


> When JR arrived on the Bulls his value around the league was about as much as a bag of balls. Why didn't NO trade him for a first rounder? Because he was a bad apple, bad team player, immature, no defense gunner. His own team that drafted didn't even play him for some reason.


He had no trade value because everyone gave up on him. People question his maturity and his work ethic but what the heck do people expect out of a kid 2 years removed from High School? So see imaturity in 90% of everyone in the league, even Lebron James is immature if you go by some of his quotes and his work ethic is at times. Nobody is perfect. 



lougehrig said:


> The only reason JR has value now is he has shown his skills and matured while playing 35 minutes a night. We don't have 35 minutes a night to raise JR's value. Therefore JR increasing his value on a Bulls team that is trying to win a championship is IMPOSSIBLE.


If you can find 25 minutes a game for Chris Duhon who is a solid player but nothing special, then yes its quite possible for JR Smith to get 35 minutes a night for the undersized Bulls, It would also be ridiculos to believe that JR would not have goten any burn during the Bulls FLOP out west. 



lougehrig said:


> Our team is about chemistry, sacrifice, ball movement, defense, team unity. JR doesn't fit any of those things so his value to our team was none, as assessed correctly by Skiles and Paxson.


Dont forget the 3 point shot where JR would fit in very nicely. Has Ben Wallace been the cover boy for team chemistry and sacrifice and untill tonite defense? I would have no confidence at all with this Bulls staff if they could not turn around a troubled kid like JR with great character guys like Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Skiles and Duhon. People Change and sometimes maybe even something different can be a good thing (Dennis Rodman).



lougehrig said:


> JR is a black hole who averages 1.6 assists per game. If you watch our team, we pass the ball. Alot. Every player. We don't have an assist first point guard, so everybody needs to move the ball to find the best shot. JR does not do this.


If we dont have an assist first PG then we really dont have a legit PG. Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon and Gordon both handle and pass the ball extreamly well. JR Smith doesnt need to have the ball in his hands everytime to score, as he showed when he droped 37 on us. When needed he would provide the offense and when not needed for offense he would sit on the bench. 



lougehrig said:


> Another thing you might notice is JR doesn't play a lick of defense. We are a defense first team if you hadn't noticed. Gordon plays average to above average defense. JR doesn't fit.


Everyone on the Bulls doesnt need to be Scottie Pippen to make this team. Again you take the time and you make this player a defensive player. You have to develop talent as well and not just expect them to allready come as finished products. 



lougehrig said:


> So you, and every other JR lover, assume that the following would (should have) happened:
> 
> 1. JR Smith plays 35 minutes a night
> 2. Ben Gordon is benched
> ...


1. Why not? Especially after the west coast funk. 
2. Ben is still benched. Since when cant Ben Gordon come off the bench and play PG while JR is at the SG spot? No body is saying that JR would have averaged 18 ppg like he does with the Nugz but he would still be better then Adrian Griffin even with half the minutes. 
3. I would expect Skiles to do what he does best and thats get results from his players by calling them out and expecting more out of them, is this to much to ask?
4. I would think that JR would be on the court when the Bulls needed points. I remember as early as a year ago when Scott Skiles was fine with Janero Pargo shooting shot after shot after shot. 
5. ?
6 Why would we trade JR if hes producing for us? 
7. Well so far, our #1 pick overall has sat on the bench all season long and lately has barely sniffed the court. 




lougehrig said:


> NBA is all about points and shooting. We might as well be the 1980's Nuggets. We could have JR play SF for us and maybe we could pick up Ricky Davis while we are at it. Eddy Curry could be our center.
> 
> JR Smith was a mistake by Paxson. Hahahahahahaha. Right. Still don't see any place for him.


Iam not saying that offense is the only way to go in the NBA but if you look at the way the game is being called now a days it sure is heading that way. Also, last time I checked the Nuggets have a better record then the Bulls and play in a tougher conference. 

Trading JR Smith for nothing, Yeah its a mistake. Plain and simple I dont see how anyone cant acept it as a mistake since the Bulls gave up a player who CONTRIBUTES for nothing.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Repped.

Low Risk, High Reward. If he didn't work out, cut him. Not like Griffin plays, and 2nd round picks are bought/had on the cheap.

Again, Pax shys away because he probably thinks a 20 year old could harm the mentality of 3-4 year Vets. Maybe our guys are the ones who are mentally weak, if we take this much precaution.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

1) proof of progression or regression? chandler is the same as last year, only playing more minutes.
2) intangibles? wallace was the centerpiece of a championship team. vets like billups, hamilton, prince, wallace cried foul when he left. wallace >>>> leader than chandler. chandler has no leadership ability whatsoever.
3) i can agree that chandler = wallace offensively and gordon = jr smith defensively...or close in any regards...like i said, ben+ben = chandler+smith on paper. off paper, ben and ben are far ahead.
4) "you can smith minutes from a variet of places"...okay where?


1. Chandler is rebounding at a higher rate good enough for second in the league per 48, he's shooting at a higher percentage, and his increased minutes are testimate to his improved conditioning and ability to stay out of foul trouble. Meanwhile, Wallace is down across the board statisically and the vaunted defense he was suposed to bring hasn't gotten here yet.

2. Once again the problems with using intangibles are that they are unmeasurable especially to people as removed as we are. Just because the Pistons seem to miss Wallace doesn't mean that he was a leader. I'd be mad too if I lost a good player for nothing. However, there are no Pistons though that are going around and saying we're leaderless. 

What's more is that the Pistons would be less adpt to let go of him if he was such a great leader. Finally, with all of those vets on the team who's to say he was one in the first place. And all that leadership got us into our first drama of the year (Headbandgate) that was based off of sheer insubornation.

3. There is no no no no no reason to be comparing JR Smith to Ben Gordon. 

4. With Smith you could play more rotations. You can go with big Kirk-Smith backcourt, you can go small with a Kirk, Gordon, Smith lineup, you can rest Kirk a little and go with Duhon-Smith, you can try Gordon more at PG with Gordon-Smith. You can rest Noce and Deng more with sliding Smith to the 3. 

The main point is, you gave him away for nothing.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



theanimal23 said:


> Repped.
> 
> Low Risk, High Reward. If he didn't work out, cut him. Not like Griffin plays, and 2nd round picks are bought/had on the cheap.
> 
> Again, Pax shys away because he probably thinks a 20 year old could harm the mentality of 3-4 year Vets. Maybe our guys are the ones who are mentally weak, if we take this much precaution.


I agree, I posted earlier saying that if this current crop of Bulls cant overcome 1 bad apple then this team will never be a championship calibre team. You think the Pistons won the NBA championship on Rainbows and Hugs? Or the Miami Heat winning the NBA Championship by helping old ladies cross the street? 

Common people get real, you win with talent on BOTH offense and defense and you win by having a take no prisoners rip your throat out mentality. Or have all you people forgoten about MJ? Seriously I think alot of the guys on here would call MJ a cancer, can you possibly imagine how many people on here would call for his head if he did to Kirk Hinrich what he did to Steve Kerr in practice.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



theanimal23 said:


> Why John Paxson should put away the dress, and get some balls:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/061213
> 
> ...


I don't see how Garnett is painted as this career loser. He is just as likely to lead the Bulls to a championship as AI is. In fact fits in even better.

Even when you get AI, you still have the same problem you have of no inside presence at all. Yes, the one Philly team he took didn't have any either...but this team looks like its behind that Philly teams defensse. Unless you are sure that AI takes you to the championship, you're really stunting the growth of your team as you did when you got rid of Curry and Chandler.

In fact you're probably committing the same sin you did with signing Ben Wallace, making a move that only works if he's the final piece. I don't think its a totally obvious move.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Plus the 800lb gorilla in the room is that Skiles and AI would kill each other.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



> Plus the 800lb gorilla in the room is that Skiles and AI would kill each other.


I'm willing to take that risk...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



theyoungsrm said:


> I don't see how Garnett is painted as this career loser. He is just as likely to lead the Bulls to a championship as AI is. In fact fits in even better.
> 
> Even when you get AI, you still have the same problem you have of no inside presence at all. Yes, the one Philly team he took didn't have any either...but this team looks like its behind that Philly teams defensse. Unless you are sure that AI takes you to the championship, you're really stunting the growth of your team as you did when you got rid of Curry and Chandler.
> 
> In fact you're probably committing the same sin you did with signing Ben Wallace, making a move that only works if he's the final piece. I don't think its a totally obvious move.


*Scoring is scoring. *You don't need a post presence if you have one of the most prolific scoring guards in the NBA. If someone on our team could drop 25+ a night, EVERY night, and have no trouble getting his points, I doubt we would talk about a post-scorer. Think the Lakers are looking for one? 

If you get rid of two of the guys from our current core, and it will likely take the NYK pick, do you think KG could lead the team to a ring? I don't see KG along the likes of Duncan. He is not the savior. He gets his numbers, but he will not solve our desperate scoring issues. Sure we'll score more inside, but KG is also a guy who likes to hang outside. He isn't a true banger. 

Iverson has proven his worth on a team (2001 Sixers) that is no where as good as our team (if we are only losing Gordon). You can argue that KG has not had the supporting cast, but he has only gotten past the first round once in his life. Sure, in the East he may take us further, but he isn't a guy who is willing to take the last shot with 3 seconds left in a game. 

For the price of us getting KG compared to the price of getting Iverson, we would have a better team to place around AI, and a team that is IMO perfectly built for AI.

Wallace - defensive presence needed
Noce - Do it all forward
Deng - The same, and does not need the ball in his hands to score
Hinrich - More open looks, would have less pressure on offense. I rather see the ball in AI's hands more than Hinrich dribbling into the paint, and back out.

Bench: We would be short one big man (if you think of the combined PT Brown and Sweets get).


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



theanimal23 said:


> *Scoring is scoring. *You don't need a post presence if you have one of the most prolific scoring guards in the NBA. If someone on our team could drop 25+ a night, EVERY night, and have no trouble getting his points, I doubt we would talk about a post-scorer. Think the Lakers are looking for one?
> 
> If you get rid of two of the guys from our current core, and it will likely take the NYK pick, do you think KG could lead the team to a ring? I don't see KG along the likes of Duncan. He is not the savior. He gets his numbers, but he will not solve our desperate scoring issues. Sure we'll score more inside, but KG is also a guy who likes to hang outside. He isn't a true banger.
> 
> ...


KG drops nearly the same amount of points at a much better percentage. he also does it as our weakest position. i agree that scoring is scoring, but balance does wonders. i also agree that kg isn't the traditional banger, but still offensively and defensively he gives you a better inside presence than u had. 

if you don't see kg along the lines of duncan you should. the numbers are there and i think if you put duncan in minnestoa, you'd have the same result. what's more if kg had manu, tony or sean and david, i think he be rocking alot more bling right now.

you're argument that he's not willing to take the "last shot" is completely baseless and deviod of any thought. the 2001 sixer team was nice, but it really wasnt any better than the wolves team with casell and spree. the only difference is that the wolves team a tougher ladder to climb and had a limited chance to do it

and yes if we only need to give away a pick, thomas, and deng/noce with some pieces, i think that team would defintely get you to the finals


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> When it comes to trade's.Sorry that just my opinion,but he 1 of the best when it come's to scouting and drafting.Which is why i think that he will stay pat this whole season and won't make any move's because he sux's at making trades.


I think Paxson has done pretty well overall on trades.

His best trade landed us Loul Deng for Nate Robinson. If you think that was a bad move, please stop reading this post now. We'll just agree to disagree.

His worst trade got us PJ Brown & JR Smith for Tyson Chandler. But I forgive him for that one, since it was probably forced on him by a cheapskate owner.

Criticising the JR Smith trade to Denver is a little unfair. After all, Paxson did insist on including him in the Chandler trade in the first place. Presumably JR was put on the market to the highest bidder, which happened to be Denver. So if you think Paxson got skinned on that trade, so did every other GM in the NBA that didn't bid on him. Actually the Bulls were, and are not in great need of more guards, so they can be excused for not wanting to keep a no-D head case like him. The GMs that should be questioned are those that are on teams that could use another shooting guard and didn't outbid Denver. 

The Curry trade has been discussed endlessly on this board, but I think there's a consensus that we're rather happy with the results so far.

The Rose and Crawford trades look bad on paper, but in the end they did provide cap space that was used to get Ben Wallace as well as some players that filled temporary roles on the team. I don't think many on this board would want to undo those trades.

Picking up Khryapa for a 2nd round pick seems to be a pretty good move. I doubt the 2nd rounder would have even made the team.

Altogether I'd say that he doesn't suck as a GM when it comes to trades anywhere near as badly as his predecessor. In fact he seems to be pretty good at trades that are not clearly prompted by orders from the owner to dump salary.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

i love eddy curry's game and i thought DNA-gate was a sham to move him

i really really like tyson chandler.

i thought dealing jr smith was silly.

but even with all of that.....to call Pax a bad GM is really really silly.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



theyoungsrm said:


> i love eddy curry's game and i thought DNA-gate was a sham to move him
> 
> i really really like tyson chandler.
> 
> ...


I wish we kept that 47 win team. I thought we were on the verge for incredible things. A young team that complemented each others abilities very well. I think Pax wanted Curry, but in his heart, he could not accept any injury to Curry by making him play basketball. You could tell by Pax's tone he cared for the young man. I do not think Skiles supported either Eddy or Tyson.

I do think Pax is more willing to pull a trigger on a player who may have Jib issues, but I do think it boils down to Skiles ability and willingness to make something work. I feel as if Skiles ego is too big to land a superstar who does not have a perfect record. Let alone, guys like JR who are not proven commodities that have had issues. I would like to see Skiles undergo these tests and prove his worth as a GREAT coach vs a SOLID coach.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

I don't have too many complains about Pax's work.

He's been taking care of two important GM objective:
1. Assembling a winning team
2. Keeping the salary cap healthy

We're winning and we have room for improvements either through growth or cap flexibility. The fact that our core are still young makes it even better.

Overall Pax has done a great job.

One thing that most people always forgot Despite some questionable moves, the team always stays pretty solid. I think this proves that Pax is aware of what he's doing. It seems that he calculates both best case and worst case scenario. And his worst case scenairos actually ain't really that bad. He always put us in a position where we can still win and improve.

Look at what other GM did to guys like Paul Pierce (ECF to garbage), KG (WCF to mediocrity). Or GM who hasn't been able to turn a team around 5 years since he start his job.

Pax is not the best. but he's far from sucking.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> I agree, I posted earlier saying that if this current crop of Bulls cant overcome 1 bad apple then this team will never be a championship calibre team. You think the Pistons won the NBA championship on Rainbows and Hugs? Or the Miami Heat winning the NBA Championship by helping old ladies cross the street?
> 
> Common people get real, you win with talent on BOTH offense and defense and you win by having a take no prisoners rip your throat out mentality. Or have all you people forgoten about MJ? Seriously I think alot of the guys on here would call MJ a cancer, can you possibly imagine how many people on here would call for his head if he did to Kirk Hinrich what he did to Steve Kerr in practice.


All of the factual "evidence" in this post is pretty difficult to dispute.

We are already struggling to find minutes to play people to the point that Khryapa is complaining about PT. Adding JR Smith to the mix would only complicate that. People are already clamoring that Thabo and Gordon should get more minutes at the expense of Duhon's. Now add JR and what do you get?

I'd also say the odds of JR Smith becoming a _STAR_ are virtually zero. Trading #3 and #7 to move up in the draft, as Da Grinch suggeste, is taking a chance (although we don't know if Orlando would have done so). Keeping JR Smith around wasn't taking a chance, it was a personnel decision. We acquired a player that NO didn't want, we didn't want, and shopped him around to the highest bidder.

I say all this while being indifferent about rainbows, like hugs, and have wished old lady drivers off the highway on numerous occasions. MJ was and still is my favorite player of all time.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Rhyder said:


> All of the factual "evidence" in this post is pretty difficult to dispute.
> 
> We are already struggling to find minutes to play people to the point that Khryapa is complaining about PT. Adding JR Smith to the mix would only complicate that. People are already clamoring that Thabo and Gordon should get more minutes at the expense of Duhon's. Now add JR and what do you get?


In fairness, it's been reported the deal with the Hornets may have been in place before the draft. So the Bulls probably could have passed on Thabo and taken a flyer on a big guy like Simmons, Pecherov or Boone.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



MikeDC said:


> In fairness, it's been reported the deal with the Hornets may have been in place before the draft. So the Bulls probably could have passed on Thabo and taken a flyer on a big guy like Simmons, Pecherov or Boone.


It was also reported on draft night that Thabo was Paxson's guy. His target that pick. If I recall it was Marc Stein who, following Philly's selection of Thabo, said "The Chicago Bulls are heartbroken right now".

And the fact that he traded up to make it happen proves that report true. 

So Paxson had his guy. And it wasn't Smith. JR Smith, based on what was known at the time, is not the type of guy you pass over your first-choice-gotta-get-him lottery pick for. 

That said, I attach no significance to trading Smith. My only regret is that perhaps he could now be used as a better trade asset than Griffin. The only problem is that I don't think he would have gotten the burn to enhance his value. He doesn't defend. Thabo, Hinrich, Duhon and Gordon do. He wouldn't have played.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



McBulls said:


> I think Paxson has done pretty well overall on trades.
> 
> His best trade landed us Loul Deng for Nate Robinson. If you think that was a bad move, please stop reading this post now. We'll just agree to disagree.


He traded for a draft pick. If he had picked Luke Jackson, you wouldn't be saying this. So what you really are saying is that he drafts good with lottery picks. I agree with that.



> His worst trade got us PJ Brown & JR Smith for Tyson Chandler. But I forgive him for that one, since it was probably forced on him by a cheapskate owner.


This is the prototypical Paxson trade. When he's traded NBA players for NBA players, we always have gotten the smelly end of the stick.



> Criticising the JR Smith trade to Denver is a little unfair. After all, Paxson did insist on including him in the Chandler trade in the first place. Presumably JR was put on the market to the highest bidder, which happened to be Denver. So if you think Paxson got skinned on that trade, so did every other GM in the NBA that didn't bid on him. Actually the Bulls were, and are not in great need of more guards, so they can be excused for not wanting to keep a no-D head case like him. The GMs that should be questioned are those that are on teams that could use another shooting guard and didn't outbid Denver.


An actually brilliant judge of talent would have kept JR, period.



> The Curry trade has been discussed endlessly on this board, but I think there's a consensus that we're rather happy with the results so far.
> 
> The Rose and Crawford trades look bad on paper, but in the end they did provide cap space that was used to get Ben Wallace as well as some players that filled temporary roles on the team. I don't think many on this board would want to undo those trades.


More of "smelly end of the stick" trades. None of us are clammoring to undo those trades. What we are saying is that IF we're going to trade away guys like them, our leading scorers, we want an equitable return.

AD and JYD were horrible in return for Rose. If we kept Crawford for a year, his trade value would have been much higher because he wouldn't have been BYC.

Curry was outright botched. And yes, I would rather have him than Wallace. 



> Picking up Khryapa for a 2nd round pick seems to be a pretty good move. I doubt the 2nd rounder would have even made the team.
> 
> Altogether I'd say that he doesn't suck as a GM when it comes to trades anywhere near as badly as his predecessor. In fact he seems to be pretty good at trades that are not clearly prompted by orders from the owner to dump salary.


Viktor is why we're not even a #1 team in the east, let alone a #10 team in the west. He's no Nash, CWebb, Jamison, or any of another number of quality NBA players who have changed teams during Pax' reign.

He IS the kind of player Pax trades for and keeps.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Seems to me that neither the Pax lover and the Pax haters have it right really. 

Pax is just an average GM.

For every good move (Deng for a future pick), there is a bad move (JR Smith). For every soild signing (Noc) there is a crappy signing (Pippen). For every ying (signing Chandler to that big a deal) there is a yang (PJ Brown? ugh)...

Has Pax made some good moves? Sure. Has he made some bad moves? Sure. 
Overall... C. Average. 50%. Right in the middle.


My big problem with Pax is that I don't think he has the guts to make a big trade to put us over the top. And I think he gets to attached to "his guys"... the players he really likes (you can tell who they are, it's obvious). To me, that will be his downfall; I think he'd rather stand pat with "good guys" then make a move that will result in A) a ring or B) disaster. And to me, I think there comes a point you have to take that chance and trade for a Rodman or a Rasheed or a Walker... someone to put you over the top that may not be a choir boy. And I don't think Pax will ever take that chance.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> Griffin provides abosolutely nothing to this team, nothing.


 Wasn't this guy starting for Dallas in the NBA finals last year? Skiles and Pax love him. I guess all that amounts to nothing.



> He had no trade value because everyone gave up on him.


 Even YOU admit he had no value when we had him. So Paxson got a 2nd round pick for somebody with NO VALUE that you admit



> If you can find 25 minutes a game for Chris Duhon who is a solid player but nothing special, then yes its quite possible for JR Smith to get 35 minutes a night for the undersized Bulls.


 Uh...Duhon is a point guard who defends point guards. JR Smith is a shooting guard. Duhon defends the point guard to keep Kirk out of foul trouble. JR Smith can't do that. 



> People Change and sometimes maybe even something different can be a good thing (Dennis Rodman).


Right...people do change, but why do they need to change here? We have had the last 10 years waiting for people (Eddy, Tyson, Jamal, Jalen, ERobbery) to grow up. We are done with those type of players. Let them grow up somewhere else. BTW, Dennis Rodman was a world champion, NBA rebounding champion and defensive player of the year before he came here. He was already mature. All the other crap was just antics.



> If we dont have an assist first PG then we really dont have a legit PG. Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon and Gordon both handle and pass the ball extreamly well. JR Smith doesnt need to have the ball in his hands everytime to score, as he showed when he droped 37 on us. When needed he would provide the offense and when not needed for offense he would sit on the bench.


 So you are going to take away 10 minutes a night from Kirk, Duhon and Gordon to play JR Smith? Wow....how would that sit with those guys and Skiles? I don't think Kirk would have resigned if he was playing less minutes in favor of JR "No Defense" Smith.



> Everyone on the Bulls doesnt need to be Scottie Pippen to make this team. Again you take the time and you make this player a defensive player. You have to develop talent as well and not just expect them to allready come as finished products.


 I agree with the development of talent. We have Thabo and Tyrus to develop who have a clean track record as far as teamwork and working hard. JR Smith has a tainted record along with incredible talent. We don't have time to babysit him on this team. This isn't a daycare.

In Denver, they were desperate for a SG, so much so they were willing to sign Dermarr Johnson. They had the ability to take a risk on JR Smith. We didn't have that ability.



> Trading JR Smith for nothing, Yeah its a mistake. Plain and simple I dont see how anyone cant acept it as a mistake since the Bulls gave up a player who CONTRIBUTES for nothing.


 He contributes on the Nuggets who have nobody to play shooting guard. We have two players (Ben and Kirk) who play that position who know our system who play defense. He would CONTRIBUTE NOTHING on this team. Plain and simple.

BTW, I can't believe somebody repped you for saying JR Smith could take Duhon's minutes and Adrian Griffin brings nothing. Haha. Hilarious.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Jim Ian said:


> My big problem with Pax is that I don't think he has the guts to make a big trade to put us over the top.


What trade is available to us that he didn't have the "guts" to make? Garnett? Kobe? Jesus? AI? Who? I don't see it.

Paxson is the ONLY reason we have any assets to be able to even consider trading for the likes of Garnett. Do you think we could get Garnett with the likes of Crawford, Curry, Chandler? He started with very little on this team. No value.

I think it takes some huge balls to pay Ben Wallace $16M a year at his age. Guess that doesn't count because it was a "trade".


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Jim Ian said:


> My big problem with Pax is that I don't think he has the guts to make a big trade to put us over the top. And I think he gets to attached to "his guys"... the players he really likes (you can tell who they are, it's obvious). To me, that will be his downfall; I think he'd rather stand pat with "good guys" then make a move that will result in A) a ring or B) disaster. And to me, I think there comes a point you have to take that chance and trade for a Rodman or a Rasheed or a Walker... someone to put you over the top that may not be a choir boy. And I don't think Pax will ever take that chance.


I see what you're saying, but I don't think "choir boy" is the right concept. Ben Gordon was accused of domestic violence. Ben Wallace has clashed with his coaches and has a history of malcontent-ish inciendents. Duhon, from what I understand, had some sort of alcohol issue(s) in college. 

What Pax doesn't seem to want to take a chance on is the very talented player who might not work/practice hard and set a bad example for the other players. Maybe that's right and maybe that's wrong, but I think that's the position.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Da Grinch said:


> does any1 ever wonder what it could be like if instead of defending Pax's "play it safe way " he swung for the fences for once ....


Signing Ben Wallace for $16M a year isn't swinging for the fences?

I guess that's another example of Paxson hiding in his cave counting Reinsdorf's pennies and not spending it.

Right now the following situation exists in the NBA:

1. Garnett is a great player but has no help, therefore his team has no chance of winning a championship.

2. AI is a great player but has no help, therefore his team has no chance of winning a championship.

3. Paul Pierce is a great player but has no help, therefore his team has no chance of winning a championship.

4. We have a very good team from the 2-10 spot in our rotation without a true star.

In order to get Garnett, AI, Pierce, we would have to trade away alot of good players (say 3, 4, 6, 7) in your rotation.

The result? You have Garnett, Pierce, AI with not enough help to win a championship.

No team in the NBA is going to GIVE us a superstar because we need one. They realize we are ONE great player away from being dominant for the next 5 years. They aren't stupid.

Paxson does what he can do with what he has.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



jnrjr79 said:


> I see what you're saying, but I don't think "choir boy" is the right concept. Ben Gordon was accused of domestic violence. Ben Wallace has clashed with his coaches and has a history of malcontent-ish inciendents. Duhon, from what I understand, had some sort of alcohol issue(s) in college.
> 
> What Pax doesn't seem to want to take a chance on is the very talented player who might not work/practice hard and set a bad example for the other players. Maybe that's right and maybe that's wrong, but I think that's the position.



There is two types of behavior.

1. OFF THE COURT problems like Dennis Rodman, which don't impact your contributions to the team. DRod was the ULTIMATE teammate. No way MJ or Pippen would have allowed him to stay if he wasn't. Ron Artest falls into this category.

2. ON THE COURT problems like JR Smith, which include selfishness, lack of hustle, no defense, sulking. Nobody wants this type of player on their team and its a huge risk to get somebody like that.

I don't see Paxson shying away from this type of troubled player.

Our team is good because of our TEAMWORK and TEAM FIRST approach.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

Signing Ben Wallace with Cap Space that would VANISH if unused isn't swinging for the fences.

Signing Wallace and Peja IS swinging for the fences. Before you quibble, realize we dumped Chandler's salary, so a S&T kind of scenario was possible (with us under the cap, the 125% rule wasn't even in effect).

And it doesn't have to be about Peja. Pick ANY top quality player you want.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Wasn't this guy starting for Dallas in the NBA finals last year? Skiles and Pax love him. I guess all that amounts to nothing.


So love wins championships? Thats new to me.



lougehrig said:


> Even YOU admit he had no value when we had him. So Paxson got a 2nd round pick for somebody with NO VALUE that you admit.


Yeah he had no *trade* value but the guy still had above average talent. A Nugets second round pick right now would be worth what? A mid second round pick what are the chances of him making this team? 



lougehrig said:


> Uh...Duhon is a point guard who defends point guards. JR Smith is a shooting guard. Duhon defends the point guard to keep Kirk out of foul trouble. JR Smith can't do that.


For one there arent many world beaters at PG in the NBA right now so I think the Bulls could live with giving Duhon less and less minutes. If JR Smith develops even a mediocre defense his value increases greatley because of his size and athleticism. 



lougehrig said:


> Right...people do change, but why do they need to change here? We have had the last 10 years waiting for people (Eddy, Tyson, Jamal, Jalen, ERobbery) to grow up. We are done with those type of players. Let them grow up somewhere else. BTW, Dennis Rodman was a world champion, NBA rebounding champion and defensive player of the year before he came here. He was already mature. All the other crap was just antics.


Kicking camera men, wearing a wedding dress and wrestling with other players during a game is MATURE? Wow ok. So what your saying is as long as you produce on the court you can be a jerk or a bad apple? Remember Dennis did not like to practice either. Eddy was not a bad apple, Tyson was not a bad apple, Jamal is a streetballer and so was Erob and Jalen yes was a bad apple. Tyrus Thomas will take 3-4 years untill hes a finished product are you saying we should ship him somewhere else?



lougehrig said:


> So you are going to take away 10 minutes a night from Kirk, Duhon and Gordon to play JR Smith? Wow....how would that sit with those guys and Skiles? I don't think Kirk would have resigned if he was playing less minutes in favor of JR "No Defense" Smith.


Again I never said that it was a guaranted fact that Smith was going to get 37 minutes a night. But yes i can honestly see 10 minutes take away from Duhon. If Gordon can live with playing behind the incredibly average Duhon then why woulnt Kirk understand playing less when offense is needed? 



lougehrig said:


> I agree with the development of talent. We have Thabo and Tyrus to develop who have a clean track record as far as teamwork and working hard. JR Smith has a tainted record along with incredible talent. We don't have time to babysit him on this team. This isn't a daycare.


People knew about JR Smith since he was in Highschool every move hes made has been witnessed by someone. Tyrus and Thabo came out of nowhere and in Thabos case not much is even known about the guy. Tyrus has had his share of problems as well, his maturity has been questioned (not his work ethic) and people question if he can overcome confidence problems. 



lougehrig said:


> In Denver, they were desperate for a SG, so much so they were willing to sign Dermarr Johnson. They had the ability to take a risk on JR Smith. We didn't have that ability.


Where you around in the summer when there where about 100 "we need to draft a bigger guard" thread's?



lougehrig said:


> He contributes on the Nuggets who have nobody to play shooting guard. We have two players (Ben and Kirk) who play that position who know our system who play defense. He would CONTRIBUTE NOTHING on this team. Plain and simple.


So when Ben and Kirk have their nights when they arent making their shots you still believe that JR would be sitting on the bench doing nothing? Common man even a guy like Janero Pargo who IMO was more of a shoot first player then JR got burn with this team. 



lougehrig said:


> BTW, I can't believe somebody repped you for saying JR Smith could take Duhon's minutes and Adrian Griffin brings nothing. Haha. Hilarious.


Whats hilarious is that you actually think that Duhon and Griff are better players then JR Smith. Tell me what Griffin Brings to the table with his 1 ppg and 1 rbpg over JR Smith?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



thebizkit69u said:


> Whats hilarious is that you actually think that Duhon and Griff are better players then JR Smith. Tell me what Griffin Brings to the table with his 1 ppg and 1 rbpg over JR Smith?


The majority of this post is too ridiculous to even respond to, so I won't.

Pax and Skiles and the entire team loves Griffin. That's more important than your opinion, my opinion and any fan's opinion. Enough said.

Duhon is a POINT GUARD.
Griffin is a SMALL FORWARD and the 10th man on our team.
JR Smith is a SHOOTING GUARD.

JR Smith, who plays SHOOTING GUARD, cannot replace Duhon, who plays POINT GUARD, nor Griffin who is a SMALL FORWARD and is the 10th man on our team.

Better is subjective. This isn't about one v. one skill and ability. It's about team chemistry. Duhon and Griff bring alot to our team cohesiveness, that a player like JR Smith cannot.

We already have a shooting guard who plays 30+ minutes a night. If JR Smith suddenly learns how to play the point and learns how to play defense, then I might listen.

Team Chemistry >>>>> vertical jump and one on one ability.

I mean you don't see teams beating down the door of the Knicks to get Marbury and Francis. Why? Because despite their awesome ability, they are team killers.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Signing Ben Wallace with Cap Space that would VANISH if unused isn't swinging for the fences.
> 
> Signing Wallace and Peja IS swinging for the fences. Before you quibble, realize we dumped Chandler's salary, so a S&T kind of scenario was possible (with us under the cap, the 125% rule wasn't even in effect).
> 
> And it doesn't have to be about Peja. Pick ANY top quality player you want.



I won't quibble. You taught me something new.

Signing Wallace alone is being a wimp with no balls.

Signing Wallace and Peja (which would have been impossible cap wise) is swinging for the fences. 

I guess going outside the rules of the collective bargaining agreement is swinging for the fences. You are right about that.

Reminds me of when McHale "swung for the fences" and made an illegal deal to sign Joe Smith that cost Minnesota 5 first round draft picks. :lol:


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> The majority of this post is too ridiculous to even respond to, so I won't.
> 
> Pax and Skiles and the entire team loves Griffin. That's more important than your opinion, my opinion and any fan's opinion. Enough said.
> 
> ...


Are you telling me that JR CANT play some SF or CANT be on the floor with Ben Gordon playing the point? Its ridiculous to believe that Adrian is valuable to this team because Skiles loves him! LOL.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> I won't quibble. You taught me something new.
> 
> Signing Wallace alone is being a wimp with no balls.
> 
> ...


You're wrong. The bulls had the cap space to sign both.

They clearly have the cap space to pay Wallace + Brown + Griffin + Viktor. They also could have signed Wallace to a backloaded instead of frontloaded contract. Do the math.

As I said, they were also under the cap so a S&T of a BYC player (Peja) would mean no need for the 125% rule.

They STILL have the ability to bring in Iverson or KG and be under the cap.

Next?
:lol: indeed!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> You're wrong. The bulls had the cap space to sign both.
> 
> They clearly have the cap space to pay Wallace + Brown + Griffin + Viktor. They also could have signed Wallace to a backloaded instead of frontloaded contract. Do the math.
> 
> ...


Holy crap. Thats the least accurate post in history. I think only the bolded part is even remotely accurate.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> Holy crap. Thats the least accurate post in history. I think only the bolded part is even remotely accurate.


Holy crap, indeed.

The Bulls had $19M in cap space before signing Wallace.

Viktor (didn't need to get him, we could have drafted Thomas anyway) - $1.2M
Brown $8M
Griffin $1.5M
= $10.7M

Peja? He signed for $10M (year 1) of his backloaded deal.

Holy crap. Whatever you declare to be true is true?

Sheesh


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> What trade is available to us that he didn't have the "guts" to make? Garnett? Kobe? Jesus? AI? Who? I don't see it.
> 
> Paxson is the ONLY reason we have any assets to be able to even consider trading for the likes of Garnett. Do you think we could get Garnett with the likes of Crawford, Curry, Chandler? He started with very little on this team. No value.
> 
> ...


If he doesn't have the guts to keep JR Smith on the team... that says a lot.

Of the 4 you've listed, only 1 is avalible right now, to my knowledge. And truth be told, I don't think he'd trade for AI, even if AI played at a position we needed (moot point since we are pretty set at guard right now). If the guy doesn't fit Pax's "standards"... he won't risk it. And thats fine in most cases, but sometimes you have to step out and take a chance.... something I don't think Paxon will ever do. MY OPINION. Maybe the opportunity hasn't come up yet, maybe it will never be a factor.... and I hope thats the case.

As for Wallace... may be balls, may be foolish... only time will tell. And yes, there IS a difference.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



jnrjr79 said:


> I see what you're saying, but I don't think "choir boy" is the right concept. Ben Gordon was accused of domestic violence. Ben Wallace has clashed with his coaches and has a history of malcontent-ish inciendents. Duhon, from what I understand, had some sort of alcohol issue(s) in college.
> 
> What Pax doesn't seem to want to take a chance on is the very talented player who might not work/practice hard and set a bad example for the other players. Maybe that's right and maybe that's wrong, but I think that's the position.


Exactly where I was going... perhaps "choir boy" was a reach, but you caught where I was going.

I sometimes question if a guy like Jordan who (in a way) had a "selfish"/"I'm the king of the world" (actully justfied because he was!) would make it on Paxon's squad... Would he set a "bad example" by demanding players listen to him and defer to him? Would he influance the younger players against someone in management he didnt like? 

Kinda makes you wonder about the self-imposed limits Pax is putting on himself. It's already burned him a few times...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Jim Ian said:


> Exactly where I was going... perhaps "choir boy" was a reach, but you caught where I was going.
> 
> I sometimes question if a guy like Jordan who (in a way) had a "selfish"/"I'm the king of the world" (actully justfied because he was!) would make it on Paxon's squad... Would he set a "bad example" by demanding players listen to him and defer to him? Would he influance the younger players against someone in management he didnt like?
> 
> Kinda makes you wonder about the self-imposed limits Pax is putting on himself. It's already burned him a few times...


I think even stubborn, old-fashioned Paxson would make the necessary allowances for a Michael Jordan. He did, after all, make an admittedly long-shot effort to get Kobe here a few seasons ago. I think Skaxson's main beef is with guys they consider to bring sub-optimal dedication to the job or are overly subversive. Michael and Kobe may be a lot of unappealing things, but lazy about basketball is not one of them. The same can probably be said of Big Ben, though his listlessness early in the season makes me think he's not quite the gladiator he was billed as.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

btw, I'm still trying to figure out what the topic of this thread means...

"Pax's suck is as a GM" ???

or

"Pax is suck is as a GM"

I think the 1st one makes slightly more sense. :yay:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ViciousFlogging said:


> btw, I'm still trying to figure out what the topic of this thread means...
> 
> "Pax's suck is as a GM" ???
> 
> ...


Fixed the title. Just for you 

:clap2:

Though I think it means he sucks azz as a gm.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Though I think it means he sucks azz as a gm.


well that's just crazy talk.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

I don't understand's why's anyone i's having problem's understanding's the title of thi's thread. Did's not's everyone's parent's teach them's the proper use's of the apostrophe's?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



jnrjr79 said:


> I don't understand's why's anyone i's having problem's understanding's the title of thi's thread. Did's not's everyone's parent's teach them's the proper use's of the apostrophe's?












ERROR!!!! ERROR!!!!


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Jim Ian said:


> Seems to me that neither the Pax lover and the Pax haters have it right really.
> 
> Pax is just an average GM.
> 
> ...



Cann't agree with u anymore.Your 100% right.As I was saying he's we never make a major trade because he cann't and is scared to do so,but we have maybe the most tradeable assists in the nba,and he won't use them.Any Great GM would have made a major deal by now to get us a star by now IMO.


Still Pax's is a solid GM,and i don't dislike him,just don't think he's all that great as everything thinks.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ballerkingn said:


> Any Great GM would have made a major deal by now to get us a star by now IMO.


You think so? Seems like just a couple years ago Memphis was in a position where they had a roster full of solid players and the immortal Jerry West never did get a deal for a star done.

I don't think Pax's record to date entirely precludes the idea that he'll make a trade for a star. I just think he's very cautious about who he wants and what he's willing to give up to get them (in other words, he's not going to hand over two of our best players for a Jalen Rose-type).

I do agree with the non-believers that Pax is cautious, and might even agree that it could be to our detriment. I'm just not convinced of that yet. I like our team even if we don't trade for a star. I don't think we should do that just to do it - we have to find a good deal. 



> Still Pax's is a solid GM,and i don't dislike him,just don't think he's all that great as everything thinks.


I don't think everyone here thinks he's even competent, much less good or great. There was a well-populated "Fire Paxson" club until this summer, and there have already been rumblings of bringing it back. I'm with you in that I don't get why it's so polarized. It seems unreasonable to argue that he's perfect, or that he hasn't done anything right. Personally I think our progress from yearly cellar-dweller to playoff team (possible contender?) in the past few years puts him in the "good" category.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



ViciousFlogging said:


> You think so? Seems like just a couple years ago Memphis was in a position where they had a roster full of solid players and the immortal Jerry West never did get a deal for a star done.


How'd that turn out?

At least we have history to look at


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> Signing Ben Wallace for $16M a year isn't swinging for the fences?
> 
> I guess that's another example of Paxson hiding in his cave counting Reinsdorf's pennies and not spending it.
> 
> ...


no its typical pax .

overpaying for a talent based on past performances ...he's done it before to worst production in scottie pip....teams aren't supposed to be just what they are at the moment they are supposed to give hope they can be better in the future , thats part of enjoying the team.

pax inherited the 3 C's jalen rose when he was dropping 20 a game donyell ,a lotto pick at 7, hassell, some vets who were decent ...bottom line pax inherted some talent, it wasn't nearly as bereft as people like to make it out to be, i just think it was raw , people like to act as if he has so much talent now in comparison, i dont see that, especially if ben w. is going to be as inconsistant as he has been .

i see he inherited a 30 win team ....and 3 and half years later he has a team thats been .500 for the last 100 or so games which makes them essentially a 40 win team .

there really isn't much difference to me, not really worth the crazy polarization that goes on here about past players vs. current ones.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> How'd that turn out?
> 
> At least we have history to look at


my only point in making that comparison is that it can be very hard to make those deals - even Jerry West couldn't get it done and he's one of the best GMs ever. So, I'm not going to spit in Pax's direction because he hasn't done it (yet). I'll fully support a trade for a star, but we have to be careful how much we give up. We don't want to just trade places with Minny or Boston or whoever.

those Memphis teams might have done some real damage in the East, anyway. Being a good team in the West meant playing the Spurs or Mavs in round 1. They are a cautionary tale about what can happen if you stand pat too long with a roster that's nice, but not quite good enough - I agree about that. I just don't think we're at that stage right now.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Holy crap, indeed.
> 
> The Bulls had $19M in cap space before signing Wallace.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how you turn a player under contract (PJ or Chandler) into free cap space to sign a free agent like Peja? Sign and trade? I mean Indiana got the $8M trade exception in return for Peja to sign Al Harrington. I don't see how we could have competed with that.

Still don't get how we could have signed both Wallace and Peja?


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

I'd say he's good too ViciousFlogging,but nothing great.I think he like's to be too safe and just this year took a risk in TT.I don't think he use Tim Thomas the way he could have and should have(i.e traded him for a needed or used him as a role player).Still i liked Pax draft pick's Ben,kirk,duhon,and deng, we did get lucky a bit with deng.Remember deng could have gone higher then 7 and wasn't surposed to be thier at 7,but the dumb hawks gm drafted josh childress why only that dumb GM know's(by the way i hate thier GM with a passion why the f'does that dummy have a job)so we got lucky.Still i'd say pax's is lucky good with the draft process,and that's all we as fan have to judge pax's by because he hasn't made any real trade's but his 1st 1.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

ballerkingn said:


> I'd say he's good too ViciousFlogging,but nothing great.I think he like's to be too safe and just this year took a risk in TT.I don't think he use Tim Thomas the way he could have and should have(i.e traded him for a needed or used him as a role player).Still i liked Pax draft pick's Ben i love,deng he got kind of lucky a bit that he slipped,because deng could have gone at 5 or 6 to the hawk,but they pick josh childress why only thier dumb GM know's(by the way i hate thier GM with a passion why the f'does that dummy have a job)so we got lucky.Still i'd say pax's is lucky good with the draft process,and that's all we as fan have to judge pax's by because he hasn't made any real trade's but his 1st 1.


I wouldn't classify Tyrus Thomas as a risk. While LMA was a safer pick than T2, Tyrus showed that he can play all throughout the tournament. Plus he was rated in top 3 on most draft boards. We needed a player who could possibly play inside, can board and play D, and Tyrus fit the bill. A risk would have been Rudy Gay @ 4 due to his lapses in focusing on basketball. Moving up to get O'Bryant would have been more of a risk. I do not think Thabo and Tyrus were risky picks.

While I have no complaints about Gordon and Deng, but a risk would have been (and almost Krause like) to trade those two picks for the first and get Howard. That would have been a risk. 

Krause and Paxson are the opposites in their approach. Krause would have gone for AI. Paxson isn't and won't. Their drafts are quite different too. Krause focusing more on potential, than proven commodity. I think there has to be a balance. For example, in our 2000 draft, which was possibly the worst draft ever all around (Fizer, JC, Bagaric, El-Amin, Vokshul, Guyton), it would have been better to make some safe picks @ 20. 

While I think Paxson's has proven a steady rebuilding process which has succeeded, Krause has the philosphopy of Dynasty or Bust. You either become the most dominant team of the decade with two 22 year old 7 footers (if they developed liked Amare/Dwight), or you are stuck in the rebuildling process.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> I don't understand how you turn a player under contract (PJ or Chandler) into free cap space to sign a free agent like Peja? Sign and trade? I mean Indiana got the $8M trade exception in return for Peja to sign Al Harrington. I don't see how we could have competed with that.
> 
> Still don't get how we could have signed both Wallace and Peja?


S&T is one way. You think Indy would maybe want Chandler as their starting C? I think they might. How about Duhon? The bulls had the cap space to do a lopsided deal.

To sign the two outright, they'd have had to shed some salary - about $4M-$5M worth. Phoenix traded us the Deng pick in a similar situation for them. Dealing the #2 pick for a 1st rounder in 2007 or 2008 would have saved us $3.3M.

If the bulls signed Wallace to a 5 year deal and backloaded it, it'd have been close to enough right there (to also sign Peja starting at $10M). 

*I'm not particularly fixated on Peja. * We are still in a position to deal for KG using the equivalent of that cap space, or Iverson, or anyone else in their salary range...

We certainly could have signed Wallace and Al Harrington without shedding any salary, keeping the pick, and without needing a S&T. 

But the question (really) at hand is if signing Wallace was swinging for the fences. I stand by my statement that it was using our cap space on the "best" free agent available in a pretty weak FA class. It was use it or lose it, so he used it. Not sure you can call that "gutsy" rather than pragmatic.

Here's a scenario for you to consider:
1. Sign Gooden for $9M, sign Al Harrington for $8M, leaving $2M in cap space left over.
2. Draft Aldridge.
3. Use next year's pick on a big
4. Keep Chandler

That's swinging for the fences, no?


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

theanimal23 said:


> I wouldn't classify Tyrus Thomas as a risk.
> 
> I would classify him as 1,because he's still so young and raw,and pax's hasn't shown to take many risk's in the draft instead going with the 4 year,kirk,duhon,even ben was a 3 year player but i think graduated early.I think only deng was the only person he drafted with under 2 year's experience.Deng at least played at duke and with a tougher schdule,and also played at the top rated high school and still dominated so he has the backround.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Holy crap, indeed.
> 
> The Bulls had $19M in cap space before signing Wallace.
> 
> ...


8 million dollars of that "capspace" isn't real. 

PJ Brown wasn't a free agent Einstein.

But if you think Peja or Harrington would have signed for 2 million per, then cool.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> PJ Brown wasn't a free agent Eintein.


So...DaBullz real name is....Eintein? :lol: 



Oh DaBullz, I'm so sorry... the playground beating must have been legendary.... :starwars:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Jim Ian said:


> So...DaBullz real name is....Eintein? :lol:


Thats like the 3rd time I've made a typo when questioning someone's intelligence. I've got to be more careful.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



jnrjr79 said:


> I don't understand's why's anyone i's having problem's understanding's the title of thi's thread. Did's not's everyone's parent's teach them's the proper use's of the apostrophe's?




*L.M.A.O* and spreading holiday cheer and reputation to you and yours JNR.

too funny.



:cheer:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*

What gives with the thread title being corrected? That was the best part of this banter.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey said:


> 8 million dollars of that "capspace" isn't real.
> 
> PJ Brown wasn't a free agent Einstein.
> 
> But if you think Peja or Harrington would have signed for 2 million per, then cool.


What part of "the bulls can afford to pay PJ Brown $8M" is false?

What part of "the bulls had $19M in cap space" included the $8M of Brown's contract? How did Brown get here in the first place? You can't ignore that the bulls had Chandler's $9.3M in contract they wanted to (or were willing to) move. But you will, if it lets you insult me, eh? That and AFTER getting Brown, he's a big expiring contract that other teams would want.

Harrington signed for $7.6M, Gooden for $7.8M. Peja for $10M. PICK TWO and it's a swing for the fences.

Do tell me, do you like the smell of pax's jock? You like the smell of Skiles', too?
:lol:

Next time you insult me, try "your an idiot."
:lol:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Ron Cey! said:


> 8 million dollars of that "capspace" isn't real.
> 
> PJ Brown wasn't a free agent Einstein.
> 
> But if you think Peja or Harrington would have signed for 2 million per, then cool.





DaBullz! said:


> Next time you insult me, try "your an idiot."
> :lol:


I'll say I don't have a dog in this race, and don't want to stir things up, but I do think *Ron Cey!* and *DaBullz!* are usually names associated with lively and reasoned debate. While I don't always agree with everything you guys post, I do normally agree with the way it's posted. These last few posts have strayed from that. Keep up the argument, by all means, but let's acknowledge that each of you are valuable, excellent, and intelligent posters!

Leave the personal attacks and insults to *Wynn!*, since he's capable of little else!



Plus, both of you get pretty bad at spelling, grammar, and punctuation when you get riled up!

_*you're* and idiot_

_Brown wasn't a free agent*,*(comma) Einstein!_

Peace!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I misspelled "you're" on purpose. To make a point 

:cheers:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I misspelled "you're" on purpose. To make a point
> 
> :cheers:


D'oh!

Than I guess im an idiot!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



Wynn said:


> I'll say I don't have a dog in this race, and don't want to stir things up, but I do think *Ron Cey!* and *DaBullz!* are usually names associated with lively and reasoned debate. While I don't always agree with everything you guys post, I do normally agree with the way it's posted. These last few posts have strayed from that. Keep up the argument, by all means, but let's acknowledge that each of you are valuable, excellent, and intelligent posters!
> 
> Leave the personal attacks and insults to *Wynn!*, since he's capable of little else!



Amen. Let's all take a breath here.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Pax has made good and bad trades. He is slightly above average in my book as a gm. The Rose trade was a rip off, even though we wanted to move Rose it was not a good deal. The Crawford trade was a rip off too. Crawford may be only shooting 38% on the year but his game has improved and he has been shooting free throws as well. The Deng trade was clearly a very shrewd move, as was the deal for Khryapa. I didn't care for the Curry trade because it seemed to me that the DNA stuff was just asking too much and clearly Currys heart seems to be working just fine so Pax made an excuse to deal him and it has sort of backfired until Thomas shows he is for real which I imagine he will eventually do to some extent. I didn't like the Chandler trade either because I envisioned Chandler backing up Wallace and occassionally them being in the game together during certain situations. If we had to trade away Chandlers salary to add Wallaces then frankly, as much as I like Wallace, I wouldn't have done it. Chandler is a younger cheaper version of Wallace anyway IMO. So, it wasn't a good deal, it only made sense to me if we had them both on the team and split minutes between them. Moving JR Smith IMO was a monumentally stupid move. I wacthed this kid play in HS and was like "wow that guys gonna be good". Sure, he isn't a choir boy and didn't get along with Byron Scott but that doesn't make him the next Charles Manson either. He has oodles and oodles of talent and would have been that perfect atheletic 2 guard with length that we have needed for years and only now have a little of in Thabo. But Smith was ready made and giving him up for scraps was a Dee de dee move by Pax. I really don't understand the logic that he wouldn't have gotten playing time here. I mean, a guy who can 35 a night on 40% shooting and shoots better than 40% from the 3pt line and we couldn't find him minutes? Why would that be again? I'd prefer having him in the backcourt over Gordon myself honestly. Someone pointed out that Duhon is a pg and while that is true, he has often been playing the 2 or sharing pg duties with Kirk Hinrich because...WE START 2 POINT GUARDS. That kind of takes the whole "he's a pg" argument right out of it if you ask me. It was a screw up on Pax's part and anyone saying differently is either hating on Smith for not being squeaky clean, or so far up Paxson's behind that they can peek out of his mouth.

ACE


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Do tell me, do you like the smell of pax's jock? You like the smell of Skiles', too?
> :lol:
> 
> Next time you insult me, try "your an idiot."
> :lol:


So if you are an administrator, then it is allowed for you to insult another poster? In the disguise of LOL?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lgtwins said:


> So if you are an administrator, then it is allowed for you to insult another poster? In the disguise of LOL?


I think thats in our contract somewhere....

Seriously though, is asking a question really a personal attack? 

:lol: 


ACE


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lgtwins said:


> So if you are an administrator, then it is allowed for you to insult another poster? In the disguise of LOL?


At some point, the moderators do need to edit, eh?

How do you feel about the einstein comment?

FYI, I've seen other admins ban a poster for this kind of thing. I wouldn't think of it.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

OK kids, let's get back to the subject at hand.

In my opinion, the only decent trade Pax has made during his tenure with the Bulls was getting the 7th pick of the draft a couple of years back in order to nab Deng. However, even this was not an unmitigated triumph in that I think he should have taken Deng with the 3rd pick and Iggy with the 7th pick. (With AI out of the way Iggy is going to show his stuff in Philly.)

Not that Gordon isn't a good player, it's just that we still have a need for a starting big guard. Whether Thabo becomes that guy is still uncertain. Iggy was a much more developed player than Thabo his first year out.

All of the other deals will turn out to be disasters when all is said and done. The Curry trade will almost be as bad as the Brand/Chandler trade was for Krause.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> At some point, the moderators do need to edit, eh?
> 
> How do you feel about the einstein comment?
> 
> FYI, I've seen other admins ban a poster for this kind of thing. I wouldn't think of it.


The Einstein comment to me is a jab that I think should likely be edited, although it's close.

The questions about the smell of the jocks, to me, are definitely over the line. I didn't feel comfortable editing an Admin, though.


Let's all just take a step back and behave civilly from here on out.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> OK kids, let's get back to the subject at hand.
> 
> In my opinion, the only decent trade Pax has made during his tenure with the Bulls was getting the 7th pick of the draft a couple of years back in order to nab Deng. However, even this was not an unmitigated triumph in that I think he should have taken Deng with the 3rd pick and Iggy with the 7th pick. (With AI out of the way Iggy is going to show his stuff in Philly.)
> 
> ...


So, I assume you also think signing Wallace will end up being a disaster. Some of his trades were made for C.Space in order to sign Wallace so I think that has to be taken into account. I think Wallace improves our team a lot and we are starting to see the effects of his presence. 

And by your logic, T. thomas is already a bust and next year's NYK pick swap will have little value (in drafting or trading). Also, Curry becomes a 20/10 force over an entire season. I think this would have to be true for that trade to approximate the idiocy of Brand/Chandler. I don't agree.

Also, why do you ignore the fact that paxson has added 4 solid NBA players in Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Nocioni to our roster and transformed our young team into a competitive force in the NBA after six seasons as a laughingstock?

Given how hard it is in today's NBA to turn around a franchise without a hitting a home run in the draft (a la Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Howard), I can't understand why any objective observer that looks at the Bull's big picture wouldn't rate Paxson as a good GM. Nobody's perfect and nobody has the benefit of predicting the future.

Sometimes I feel like fantasy basketball has really warped the minds of a lot of people.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

badfish said:


> So, I assume you also think signing Wallace will end up being a disaster. Some of his trades were made for C.Space in order to sign Wallace so I think that has to be taken into account. I think Wallace improves our team a lot and we are starting to see the effects of his presence.
> 
> And by your logic, T. thomas is already a bust and next year's NYK will have little value (in drafting or trading). Also, Curry becomes a 20/10 force over an entire season. I think this would have to be true for that trade to approximate the idiocy of Brand/Chandler. I don't agree.
> 
> ...


This, sir, is an excellent post! "Must spread rep...."


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> So, I assume you also think signing Wallace will end up being a disaster. Some of his trades were made for C.Space in order to sign Wallace so I think that has to be taken into account. I think Wallace improves our team a lot and we are starting to see the effects of his presence.
> 
> And by your logic, T. thomas is already a bust and next year's NYK will have little value (in drafting or trading). Also, Curry becomes a 20/10 force over an entire season. I think this would have to be true for that trade to approximate the idiocy of Brand/Chandler. I don't agree.
> 
> ...


and that's the truth ruth......excellent post.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> Harrington signed for $7.6M, Gooden for $7.8M. Peja for $10M. PICK TWO and it's a swing for the fences.
> 
> Next time you insult me, try "your an idiot."


No need to insult you. You do a good enough job of humiliating yourself.

So Signing Harringon and Gooden (restricted BTW) for $15.4M is swinging for the fences and signing Wallace for $16.0M this year isn't??????

Feel free to back off the whole notion of swinging for the fences at anytime.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



lougehrig said:


> No need to insult you. You do a good enough job of humiliating yourself.





lougehrig said:


> So Signing Harringon and Gooden (restricted BTW) for $15.4M is swinging for the fences and signing Wallace for $16.0M this year isn't??????
> 
> Feel free to back off the whole notion of swinging for the fences at anytime.​



As I explained already, using your cap space else lose it is pragmatic.

Using your cap space to bring two top FAs to the team is swinging for the fences.​ 
Trading Chandler for an expiring contract is NOT swinging for the fences.​ 
Drafting two players, one with the #2 pick, who are of no immediate help, is NOT swinging for the fences.

No need to insult you either. Funny.​ ​


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Damn Wynn. How'd you become a basketballboards.net "lifetime member"? Is that something like joining the mafia.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: Pax's Suck's as a GM....*



DaBullz said:


> As I explained already, using your cap space else lose it is pragmatic.
> 
> Using your cap space to bring two top FAs to the team is swinging for the fences.​
> Trading Chandler for an expiring contract is NOT swinging for the fences.​
> ...


Gotta learned me some of dem rules bout da swingin' for da fences summa time.

BTW:

Future NBA first teamer J.R. Smith with 15 points in a decent night versus the Celtics. He was guarding Tony Allen who had 30 points on 11-13 shooting.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

badfish said:


> So, I assume you also think signing Wallace will end up being a disaster. Some of his trades were made for C.Space in order to sign Wallace so I think that has to be taken into account. I think Wallace improves our team a lot and we are starting to see the effects of his presence.
> 
> And by your logic, T. thomas is already a bust and next year's NYK pick swap will have little value (in drafting or trading). Also, Curry becomes a 20/10 force over an entire season. I think this would have to be true for that trade to approximate the idiocy of Brand/Chandler. I don't agree.
> 
> ...


I think you went a bit over the top regarding your assumptions. If you re-read my post I specifically referred to trades, rather than over all draft choices. For the record I would give Pax a B- on his draft choices.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

SST! said:


> Damn Wynn. How'd you become a basketballboards.net "lifetime member"? Is that something like joining the mafia.


I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you. I think we're both better off with you not knowing..... it might help for you to think of me as sort of a super-secret top level muckity-muck here at basketballforum.com set in place to administer the administrators, modify the moderators, and otherwise make sure the things operate effectively on the site.

Of course, that would be wrong, but it would be neat. In fact, anyone may purchase their own piss-yellow medallion simply by forking over $19.99 to the powers that be here on our forum. I happen to spend enough time here that I feel like it's a small expense for such a great value. I know you feel the same or you wouldn't have the nice, classy, silver "premium member" medallion.

Despite my dislike of the new formatting, this place is truly the only place to follow the Bull as an out-of-towner. I realized, maybe falsely, that if everyone who is a regular poster had paid the optional (and fairly insignificant) membership fee, we might never have had to go elsewhere for the funds to keep this site running.

What an innocent question to launch a soapbox! Thanks for giving me the platform to announce my support for the website formerly known as basketballboards.net!


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> I think you went a bit over the top regarding your assumptions. If you re-read my post I specifically referred to trades, rather than over all draft choices. For the record I would give Pax a B- on his draft choices.



Fair enough, but remember the thread topic is "Pax sucks as a GM". Also, many of our recent draft choices have been tied to a trade so, IMO, I don't think I was out of line with my assumptions. Remember, you said that the Curry trade would possibly go down as "almost as bad as...". 

Also, when somebody comes out and says that Pax has been an unmitigated disaster with his trades and says nothing else then I feel compelled to illustrate that trades usually don't happen in a vacuum. Often times, trades have other implications beyond the players in question (i.e. cap space and team chemistry). 

If fact, in life most things don't happen in a vaccum.....except in fantasy sports. :wink:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

badfish said:


> Fair enough, but remember the thread topic is "Pax sucks as a GM...."


Actually, the topic is "Pax's Suck's as a GM...." Unfortunately some misguided soul felt the need to change it after the fact.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Wynn said:


> Actually, the topic is "Pax's Suck's as a GM...." Unfortunately some misguided soul felt the need to change it after the fact.


I lost interest in this thread after the title was changed. 

Trying to figure why Pax had a suck and how it became a GM was far more interesting.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I lost interest in this thread after the title was changed.
> 
> WTF Are u talking about,u need to stop trying to play people fool,because i know a lot more about B-Ball then u and for ur information the post was never miss-spelled by it was altered,by someone else,not sure who but blame them u better not be talking about me,because I started this thread.
> 
> ...


And WTF are u saying right here?


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Wynn said:


> Actually, the topic is "Pax's Suck's as a GM...." Unfortunately some misguided soul felt the need to change it after the fact.



So true. There was a certain poetry to it. :cheers:


----------

