# Tribune: Thomas' run with Bulls complete- Forward will stay in New York, not play



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Tribune: Thomas' run with Bulls complete - Also Sun-Times, Daily Herald*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...8bulls,1,674048.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines



> Tim Thomas will not play another game for the Bulls this season.
> 
> That appears to be the only certainty at this point for Thomas, acquired in the Eddy Curry trade with the Knicks in early October. Bulls general manager John Paxson said Monday the team and Thomas agreed to split as Paxson explores trade possibilities for the 6-foot-10-inch forward.
> 
> ...





> Paxson will not make any hasty trade decisions. He must weigh potential trades carefully as he looks ahead to the 2006 draft and free-agent signing period. He has been positioning the Bulls for a big acquisition next summer, when the team will have about $20 million in salary-cap room.
> 
> "I don't know what the chances are," Paxson said of dealing Thomas. "We have certain ideas on what it would take. Right now we're in a position where we want to go a certain direction with our team."
> 
> ...


The Herald Story: http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=126507



> It was difficult for him to get into practice and establish any kind of role,” Paxson said. “Tim didn’t do anything wrong. He’s a good guy. It’s just that we’re at a different place right now.”
> 
> According to team sources, Thomas worked hard in practice but didn’t embrace coach Scott Skiles’ system. No matter what Thomas did, the Bulls weren’t anxious to send Deng or Nocioni to the bench.
> 
> “He wants to play,” Paxson said. “We’re in a position where that’s probably not going to happen here.”


The Sun-Times: http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull291.html with a longer quote from Paxson:



> ''Tim has made some comments about being here, and I have mentioned that he is at a different stage of his professional career than most of our guys,'' Paxson said. ''He wants to play, and right now we're in a position where that's probably not going to happen here.
> 
> ''I don't want to put Tim and my coach in a position where every day they have to answer the question of when he's coming off the inactive list and why he's not playing.''
> 
> ...


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

narek said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...8bulls,1,674048.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


Fire up the trade checker -- it's trade time!


----------



## SDBullsFan (Oct 4, 2005)

Is anyone else aggravated by the fact that a lazy, good-for-nothing, malcontent, whose ONLY JOB was to practice 2 hours a day over the course of 6 months will make more this year than most of us COMBINED on this message board in our lifetimes?

I normally would never wish harm upon anyone, but I won't exactly lose sleep if he breaks his legs falling down the stairs tomorrow.


----------



## MightyMouse1984 (Nov 21, 2005)

SDBullsFan said:


> Is anyone else aggravated by the fact that a lazy, good-for-nothing, malcontent, whose ONLY JOB was to practice 2 hours a day over the course of 6 months will make more this year than most of us COMBINED on this message board in our lifetimes?
> 
> I normally would never wish harm upon anyone, but I won't exactly lose sleep if he breaks his legs falling down the stairs tomorrow.


TT pisses me off...Even tyson shows up to practice


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

what a mess!

I'm speculating but I believe that some altercation occured between Skiles and Thomas during practice. Skiles hoped to patch things up by saying he wanted to reconcile things but Thomas wants no part of our club.

Skiles also said that we have an we have a group of young guys who are hungry to win and that sometimes the guys who got their payday feel that they don't need to work as hard. There are irreconcilable differences and now we have to see who we can get. Letting it get to this will force Pax to accept a lowball offer.

Now for the sexy question : Who should get the lions share of the blame? Eddy? Pax? Skiles? TT?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

It's funny. I all but assumed AD would be the one who ended up not playing for the team he was traded to this season. It just goes to show you; character. . . 

"We're trying to treat him professionally," Paxson said of his reason for the split. "That's the goal here."

I'm glad to see paxson protecting our rep [or at least whats left of it]. Putting on a good public face will go towards making the free agency dollars worth something. . . hopefully.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

There are two interesting questions about trades that I come out of this article with:

1) Who would you want to trade Thomas for this season? You can include other Bulls and/or picks in the deal.

2) Who do you think Paxson would make a trade for this year including Thomas? How good must the player be for us to destroy our summer of 06 cap room?

I think Pax wants to trade for a Bryant/Garnett like star with the Thomas contract. Perhaps he would consider Pierce. Either that or Pax could look to trade for an expiring contract in return. In any case, Pax will be making the cold calls this time around (!!!).


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

So who will it be? We need a big man, a center.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> \
> 
> Now for the sexy question : Who should get the lions share of the blame? Eddy? Pax? Skiles? TT?


Since we have no idea what happened answering that question would be completely pointless and would risk sending this board back to its polarized, pre truce form. Why bother?

To me the more interesting question is if Paxson will jeopardize cap space to honor TTs request.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Deal #1
TT for Skinner and Wells

Deal #2
TT for Rose and a pick

Deal #3
TT for Odom (LA gets a chance to rebuild around Kobe)

Deal #4
TT for Cato and Turk 

Deal #5 
TT for Ratlif


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

The Odom trade would be useless, a power forward who hates playing the position...
Unless Garnett magically becomes available and comes cheaply (the last thing we need to do is gut the team), the only person that should be conisdered is Pierce.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

What would you guys think about this trade:

Boston trades: Paul Pierce, Mark Blount, Ryan Gomes

Chicago trades: Ben Gordon, Andres Nocioni, Tim Thomas, Chicago's 2006 1st round pick


Boston doesn't do this unless they're more or less looking to move Pierce, which they may have been looking to do this summer. Pierce is only under contract for one more year after this one, so acquiring him is a risk. We takes back Blount's crappy contract, but he gets playing time for us and fills our need for another center type to go along with Tyson. Regardless of who starts, Tyson, Blount, and Sweetney get the most minutes at the 4 and 5 positions. 

Boston tries Gordon at the point right off the bat:

Gordon, West, Dickau, O. Green
Davis, Allen, G. Green
Nocioni, Thomas
Jefferson, Scalabrini
LaFrentz, Perkins

Chicago

Hinrich, Duhon, Pargo
Pierce, (Hinrich), Pike, Basden
Deng, (Pierce), Gomes
Sweetney, Harrington, Songaila
Chandler, Blount, Allen


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Why didn't Pax just take Penny's expiring deal instead? Penny actually fit a need (tall guard who can play some point). The biggest value in acquiring either player was the fact they both had expiring deals... but at least Penny has played for Skiles in the past and already knows what to expect from him. We all knew TT wasn't going to get any playing time with Deng and Noce already on the team.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Since we have no idea what happened answering that question would be completely pointless and would risk sending this board back to its polarized, pre truce form. Why bother?
> 
> To me the more interesting question is if Paxson will jeopardize cap space to honor TTs request.


 Just take the situation face value. There has to be some sort of accountability. Paxson needs to rectify this situation instead of trying to downplay to the press. Now that it's published that Timmy is not playing a second for the Bulls, its hard to salvage much and he's got a tough task ahead of him.

I don't like the fact that we are placing the blame soley on Tim Thomas.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> What would you guys think about this trade:
> 
> Boston trades: Paul Pierce, Mark Blount, Ryan Gomes
> 
> ...


Can pierce play SG? If he can I would do the trade. Blount covers a need. 

Would Boston do this?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Can pierce play SG? If he can I would do the trade. Blount covers a need.
> 
> Would Boston do this?


Pierce is a 2/3 tweener in a good way. He can play either position. 

We've been talking Pierce to the Bulls trades for a long time now. I still have no idea if Paxson is interested or not. I'm not even sure how I feel about him. I do know he'd be the best player we've had on this team in a while. Blount just recently requested a trade, but that's not enough incentive to trade Pierce in and of itself. It's pretty clear he was available this summer. 

How does Gordon/Thomas/Nocioni/mid first round pick compare with the rumored Nene (pre injury) and Andre Miller deal from this summer?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I'd even do a Duhon, Gordon, TT and a pick for Pierce, Banks and Woods (the last 2 being fillers)
We'd still have around $10M to hit up the likes of Nene any other big man.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I think of him as a sf, and I know the trade being discusses includes nocioni; however, I want to see Deng hold that spot down. Pierce could play back up when he is not at SG. 

I am warming up to this idea and it will still give us a first round pick next summer and two second round picks. 

As far as I am concerned we are one player away from being a serious contender year after year. 

One of the down sides of this trade is the fact that Pierce has not made a difference in Boston despite his game. They are 5-8. Would the Bulls be 8-3 or 9-2 with Pierce? Or would we still be 6-5?

He has a complete game there is now doubt about that. 

Blount would bring us 13 pts 4 rebounds( I thought curry was bad.) and block and a half and 2.2 assists so he can pass a little bit. ( I would rather have lafrentz, but I dont see Boston trading him with Pierce.)


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> One of the down sides of this trade is the fact that Pierce has not made a difference in Boston despite his game. They are 5-8. Would the Bulls be 8-3 or 9-2 with Pierce? Or would we still be 6-5?


Well Boston did have its run, but they really haven't built a team around him like they should of. Pierce would bring solid consistant play, soemthing that would be invaluable to us.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I've been keen on trading for PP and Blount for a while now. I think Paxson should be picking up the phone and getting it done.

Here's what some Celtics fans think.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=212881


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Would Boston do this?


My gut feeling is absolutely not.

Pierce is the public face of the franchise. This board knows Pierce from his games -- often pouting and complaing about calls. But, you don't get to see the press Pierce gets in Boston. He graces the papers an awful lot. Carries himself well. Lots of public appearances. Does a fair amount for charity. Nery a scandal. Valuable if you want to win games, and invaluable if you want to sell tickets.

My gut feeling is we would have to overpay for Pierce. At a minimum two of KH, BG, LD, and the draft pick. . . and then it still would be iffy. Theres very little good that come to Boston by moving Pierce.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> What would you guys think about this trade:
> 
> Boston trades: Paul Pierce, Mark Blount, Ryan Gomes
> 
> ...


Blount would be a pretty bad fit. With the 15% trade kicker his deal is huge, and he doesn't defend or rebound. Given the massive contract, recent steroids implications and general dissatisfaction the Celtics organization has with him from the front office down to the coaches I would be very hesitant to take him on.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Ok this will not be popular but it makes sense because of the contract situations is a Tim Thomas and Keith Van Horn swap. Thomas would actually have a role in Dallas and KVH gives us another huge expiring contract. I know he is not a center but the options are very limited here.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

You must be kidding me.

"I don't like the fact that we are placing the blame soley on Tim Thomas." TT was on SI all posion team. Paxson expects his players to be men and the bottom line is TT is a rich lazy spoiled rich kid who thinks he is a STAR but never plays that way. Every team he plays for it is the same thing. His teammates all say he is the worst and posion. Please TT can play xbox games all day and tell his friends what a star he is. he will be lucky to play for the league minimum next year.

david


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 2, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Deal #1
> TT for Skinner and Wells
> 
> Deal #2
> ...


there is something wrong with all of those trades

Deal #1 - why would sacramento give up a decent back-up centre and bonzi wells (14ppg, 8.5rpg, 3apg) for TT (4.3ppg, 1.3rpg, 0.7apg and a lazy attitude with a ridiculous contract) youd have to be isiah thomas to give those guys for TT

Deal #2 - Rose is too old for the chicago bulls and they have all the veteran leadership they need, not saying that jalen will actually bring much and a NY pick this year is looking like lottery once again, so remember this is TIM THOMAS

Deal #3 - if you want to rebuild you need guys with a decent attitude and work ethic, plus if you wanna build around kobe you need someone good enough to keep him in the atmosphere and lamar is that guy, and seriously lamar for TT?

Deal #4 - salaries probs wont work out and cato can be useful as a big body off the bench and turk is starting to find his groove this year and is orlandos main outside threat and hes actually good

Deal #5 - this will make the headlines for all the wrong reasons

also offensively he is average and then defensively in 26.3mpg in his career and can only hold career averages of 4rpg & 0.3bpg, remember this guy is 6 FOOT 10!!!!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'd rather TT be away from the team at this point. The real reason we made this trade was to swap Eddy for Sweets and get a bundle of draft picks as well. He can hang out in NY for all I care, just as long as we have an expiring contract in the $10-14M range, just in case a big trade opportunity comes along (I still don't think the chance will come around until trade deadline). 

By the way, let's not kid ourselves and think this doesn't happen in the NBA. There must be a pretty large handful of teams dealing with "trade requests" as we speak, several of them much uglier than this (and many are mediocre at best...Ruben Patterson, Radmanovic, etc).


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Deal #2
> TT for Rose and a pick


u CAN't be serious

your theo ratliff idea was RIGHT on the money though


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Basghetti80 said:


> Ok this will not be popular but it makes sense because of the contract situations is a Tim Thomas and Keith Van Horn swap. Thomas would actually have a role in Dallas and KVH gives us another huge expiring contract. I know he is not a center but the options are very limited here.


There could be better options, but I wouldn't mind KVH coming our way. He would provide what we expected Songaila to be for us, at least on a more consistent basis.

That said, I don't see any reason for Dallas to do this. With Nowitzki and Dampier, KVH is third on the depth chart. I don't think they are ready to play Dasagana Diop or Josh Powell heavy minutes to replace KVH's 25 mpg or so. That and an injury to either starter could be devastating without KVH being able to fill in at PF.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

So Tim Thomas "worked hard" and is a "nice guy", but was never going to get on the court for us because we're giving entitlement minutes to Deng and Nocioni?

That doesn't seem to be treating him "professionally" to me.

I'm more inclined to think Thomas just didn't want to play if he wasn't going to get the star treatment. That's not very professional.

Of course, the line coming from the Bulls is disturbing to me too, because it basically confirms that he was never going to get a fair shake in the first place. Even if he came in, did everything that was asked of him, and played better than the other guys, the Bulls give the impression he probably wouldn't get to start or play big minutes. And that's not very professional either.

As usual, I'm less impressed with everyone involved. Sending a guy home is not a good thing. Not getting yourself into such messes in the first place is a good thing.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Can anyone figure out how to make TT for Cato&filler work(without the filler being contracts that are beyond this season?)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I said TT was a cancer when we traded for him and now you see why. I still don't like the public declaration that he will "never play another game for the Bulls" or the discussion about his work ethic or lack thereof, making that sort of thing public doesn't exactly help his trade value IMO, not that it was incredibly high to begin with. we would have been better tossing him out there a few games and letting him fill up the stat sheet and then dealing him to the first sucker with a decent deal for him.

My trade that I proposed a while back was TT, Gordon, and a draft pick (perhaps cash also) for Paul Pierce and Blount. Pierce is a gifted player who can play the 2 or the 3, he can post up, he can slash (which is really what we need), he can shoot the long ball and the midrange shot, he can penetrate, he can play solid defense. In short, he would be a real winner for us and come in immediately as a starting 2 guard. We are lacking in size and Blount, despite having some faults, would fill a need for us. It's a good deal and I hope Pax can somehow make it happen.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I said TT was a cancer when we traded for him and now you see why. I still don't like the public declaration that he will "never play another game for the Bulls" or the discussion about his work ethic or lack thereof, making that sort of thing public doesn't exactly help his trade value IMO, not that it was incredibly high to begin with. we would have been better tossing him out there a few games and letting him fill up the stat sheet and then dealing him to the first sucker with a decent deal for him.
> 
> My trade that I proposed a while back was TT, Gordon, and a draft pick (perhaps cash also) for Paul Pierce and Blount. Pierce is a gifted player who can play the 2 or the 3, he can post up, he can slash (which is really what we need), he can shoot the long ball and the midrange shot, he can penetrate, he can play solid defense. In short, he would be a real winner for us and come in immediately as a starting 2 guard. We are lacking in size and Blount, despite having some faults, would fill a need for us. It's a good deal and I hope Pax can somehow make it happen.


Sorry if I stole your deal, Ace. I thought of Boston because Blount started pouting this week. There has been many a trade proposed to nab Pierce though, and I've made some of them before.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Sorry if I stole your deal, Ace. I thought of Boston because Blount started pouting this week. There has been many a trade proposed to nab Pierce though, and I've made some of them before.



No problem man, a good deal is a good deal no matter who suggests it. Clearly Boston has been dangling Pierce for a long time now and I remember watching him on that real training camp thing, he was a vocal leader and was patting guys on the back, he absolutely seems like a great guy to have. Of course I don't think AInge is a great talent evaluator either.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> So Tim Thomas "worked hard" and is a "nice guy", but was never going to get on the court for us because we're giving entitlement minutes to Deng and Nocioni?
> 
> That doesn't seem to be treating him "professionally" to me.
> 
> I'm more inclined to think Thomas just didn't want to play if he wasn't going to get the star treatment. That's not very professional.



you know there was this bit in the bulls training camp segment they showed on nba tv where i think it was jim boylan taking the new players off to the side and speaking to them about skiles. basically boylan said, "see that guy over there? (skiles) he doesn't care where you've been or what you've done, if you're not working hard and aren't going to help the team win, he won't play you". or something close to that effect. i guess timmy didn't work harder than deng or nocioni (surprise!) and that's very much on him, given the clear parameters of the style of basketball skiles demands be played. i don't think deng or noc get "entitlement" minutes. they work their butts off. true, he was injured for most of camp and fell behind, but one would think a player in a contract year would have the motivation of ten men. 

*but i think you're right on this point mike*, that timmy didn't want to play unless he got treated like he was the shiznit (or however that's spelled) and likewise, skiles and pax are sort of mincing their words about how "it's not timmy's fault". please. skiles went on the radio and said he didn't like the non-chalance approach timmy had for the game. that timmy had been taken aside and been spoken to about his intensity. that's the program. it's intense. get with it or sit. 

so both sides are being kinda wussy with these public comments. but please pax, don't do the guy anymore favors. don't trade him for junk. i never thought i would quote this line, considering the source, but *this isn't charity!!!* i realize pax has to put a better face on it, but it's not like the teams who might be interested in timmy don't know the deal with him. that's laughable. 

so for those who worry about the fact that all of a sudden "this secret" is out that timmy is not the best teammate or doesn't work hard, please. that's the worst kept secret in the league. and pax didn't "trade FOR" him.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

This is the Bulls fault not Tim Thomas'.

Somehow Paxson and Skiles find a way to alienate a superstar talent and now they're gonna lose him for next to nothing. Say what?

Paxson is the biggest joke in the league and I'm on the verge of tears because of it. 

Guys like Tim Thomas are the way of the future: 6'10'' handles the rock... shoots like a great dane.

It's the way of the future. 

The way of the future. 

It's the way of the future.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

madox said:


> This is the Bulls fault not Tim Thomas'.
> 
> Somehow Paxson and Skiles find a way to alienate a superstar talent and now they're gonna lose him for next to nothing. Say what?
> 
> ...


So you think the Paxson and Skiles are in cohots to deny the team what could be a key contributer and worst of all, potentially deny the Bulls the cap space they've been clinging to for a while now?

What could be the motivation for such a conspiracy?


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Thomas' is a career underachiever and cancer.

Every team that has had Tim Thomas has wanted to get rid of him.

If he is the future of the NBA, it is time to sell your stocks.

He is a "me first, no defense, malcontent".


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

madox said:


> This is the Bulls fault not Tim Thomas'.
> 
> Somehow Paxson and Skiles find a way to alienate a superstar talent and now they're gonna lose him for next to nothing. Say what?
> 
> ...




I was joking.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

think we should wait till trade deadline at Midseason or at least closer to that time. I think if there is a chance guys like Kobe or KG might be available we should take a good look at all our options. we'd be in an Ideal situation to get a mega star on the move - we have TT's huge expiring contract (and a servicable player if needed) , we got some 1st rounder to toss in (while one of them looks like a very high pick in the Making for a team looking to restart after trading their star) , we got lots of young talent on small contracts , and we are a big market after all.

as for now , Lakers are 5-7 and to be honnest don't look that good. They totally depend on Kobes play , and usually it ain't enough. If by Midseason they only have around 15 wins , I see a good chance of Kobe and PJax ego fights come back , and the only way Kobe can be traded is if he asks for it (no trade clause). also , both Kobe and Pax seemed to show mutual interest last summer break.

I also like the option of PP. Personally , I see him as more of a sg , anyway he has no problem playing it. Blounts contract is a killer with that 15% trade kicker , but as a 3rd big on rotation he might be ok (nothing more). PP is a guy with some off-court baggage , but on court he's always played hard , so maybe Pax would be interested. Hopefully we could take Raef instead of Blount (1 year less of contract ). Danny seems to just love those picks , but I still believe if he trades PP he'd also prefer to wait till midseason.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Thomas is a bum but you use that bum and then toss him on the street . Weve just lowered his value to -27 now :curse: 

I cant see an all star talent signing with the Bulls this summer because those guys are all about the numbers and the minutes .I think Skiles system works because he has no names on the team but if you ever brought in an actual star it would fall apart.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Thomas is a bum but you use that bum and then toss him on the street . Weve just lowered his value to -27 now :curse:
> 
> I cant see an all star talent signing with the Bulls this summer because those guys are all about the numbers and the minutes .I think Skiles system works because he has no names on the team but if you ever brought in an actual star it would fall apart.


That's the spirit, way to be optimisitc. :greatjob:

Back on topic though...like I said, I'm content holding out on Thomas until the trade deadline because as long as he's not with the team, he won't be a distraction. We have 2 inactive spots to fill every game anyways, so he might as well be inactive and give the active spot to Allen or Basden. If I'm Pax, then I tell TT that I'm ready and willing to trade him when/if the opportunity arises; but if the trade deadline comes and goes, then I'd release him and let him sign with a team of his choice. I tell him that's our deal; sorry there isn't anything better but at least you'll have 3 months to play basketball this year and you're still getting a hefty paycheck.

Now if we want to trade sooner rather than later, I really only see 1 trading partner that makes sense: the Orlando Magic. They have several bigs (Cato and Battie) with expiring deals. And even though trading Nocioni isn't ideal, we could always entice them by giving up Nocioni in a deal and taking back Turkoglu (who is a fairly equal player who makes $2M more per year with a few extra years on the contract). We could also throw in some 2nd round picks. The idea is that we help ourselves short term by adding size without sacrificing any long-term assets.

Something like TT ($13.9M) + Nocioni ($2.8M) + future 2nd rounder = $16.7M

for

Kelvin Cato ($8.6M) + Turkoglu ($5.4M) + Augmon or Outlaw ($1.15M) = $15.15M

Not sure if this would do it, but this is closest I could come to a deal. I think it's on the right track at least.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> No problem man, a good deal is a good deal no matter who suggests it. *Clearly Boston has been dangling Pierce for a long time now* and I remember watching him on that real training camp thing, he was a vocal leader and was patting guys on the back, he absolutely seems like a great guy to have. Of course I don't think AInge is a great talent evaluator either.


Why do you say this?


----------



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

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Thomas is a bum but you use that bum and then toss him on the street . Weve just lowered his value to -27 now :curse:
> 
> I cant see an all star talent signing with the Bulls this summer because those guys are all about the numbers and the minutes .I think Skiles system works because he has no names on the team but if you ever brought in an actual star it would fall apart.


We don't know what to do with talent here in Chicago. That's why we keep pissing it away.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I can see an all-star signing here. TT is no all-star by any stretch of the imagination. AD was here and we never sat him. Harrington is here and he is not benched. 

Some of us want to blame the Pax and skiles completely? fine. But TT is not without blame. 

I personally think Nocioni and Deng just flat outplayed him during practice. Maybe TT was playing hard but not good enough to warrent any time.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Here's what some Celtics fans think.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=212881


Some of this is interesting:



> Gordon is overrated IMO, he can't replace Pierce. However, Hinrich is very good on both ends of the court.





> I prefer Hinrich over Gordon, too. Gordon is a good scorer, other than that...well nothing else impresses me... Hinrich is tempting though.





> ...I love Hinrich, don't want any part of Gordon...


Idiots.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TT is a career 12/4 player. 12 pts and 4 rebounds. Both of those stats are rounding on the positive side for Thomas so both of them are kind to him. 

Deng is doing 12/5 1.3 assists and 1 t/o

Noc...12/5 1 assist.


----------



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

truebluefan said:


> I can see an all-star signing here. TT is no all-star by any stretch of the imagination. AD was here and we never sat him. Harrington is here and he is not benched.
> 
> Some of us want to blame the Pax and skiles completely? fine. But TT is not without blame.
> 
> I personally think Nocioni and Deng just flat outplayed him during practice. Maybe TT was playing hard but not good enough to warrent any time.


If by all-star you mean, some mid-level second-tier talent like Peja, then yes, we can definitely sign an all-star. But what exactly are we going to do with an all-star ?

I find it very ironic that for all this talk about how great and effective our selfless play and defense is, we still want to trade for that one "superstar." How is a superstar player in general going to work under Skiles ? The only other established superstar player he's coached he pissed off, and he's a defense-playing league-leading point guard.

Our system is designed to make something out of nothing, rather than something more out of something. With our current management and system, I think the farthest we can go is 2nd maybe 3rd round of the playoffs. We'll be good for the playoffs almost every year. However based on his history of dealing with talented players, I don't think our coach really has that mindset of doing everything possible to win a championship.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I can see an all-star signing here. TT is no all-star by any stretch of the imagination. AD was here and we never sat him. Harrington is here and he is not benched.
> 
> Some of us want to blame the Pax and skiles completely? fine. But TT is not without blame.
> 
> I personally think Nocioni and Deng just flat outplayed him during practice. Maybe TT was playing hard but not good enough to warrent any time.


Patience is the key in our situation. We really want to win the Kobe/KG sweepstakes if it ever does inded materialize. But PP is not such a bad consolation prize, and I think it's very realistic as well. From now until the trade deadline Bulls fan should be scouting our team hard because one of our young talents has a high likelyhood of getting packaged to Boston. Ben is a very likely candidate, and I seem to remember Boston being high on him during the draft. Nocioni is another player that might have to be included in the deal. He's also one of the most improved players so far this year on the Bulls team. Maybe he's got more value on or squad as a Artest type to run along side PP and take some of the defensive responsibilities away from PP. 

I have to admit, I'm in love with the idea of PP and Hinrich playing along side one another. These players have a lot of shared court time, both from college and off season games. I'd imagine both of them playing very well along side one another. Duhon and PP would also be a nice guard combination. Gordon and PP doesn't interest me as much, which is why he's the logical choice to send over to the C's.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> If by all-star you mean, some mid-level second-tier talent like Peja, then yes, we can definitely sign an all-star. But what exactly are we going to do with an all-star ?
> 
> I find it very ironic that for all this talk about how great and effective our selfless play and defense is, we still want to trade for that one "superstar." How is a superstar player in general going to work under Skiles ? The only other established superstar player he's coached he pissed off, and he's a defense-playing league-leading point guard.
> 
> Our system is designed to make something out of nothing, rather than something more out of something. With our current management and system, I think the farthest we can go is 2nd maybe 3rd round of the playoffs. We'll be good for the playoffs almost every year. However based on his history of dealing with talented players, I don't think our coach really has that mindset of doing everything possible to win a championship.


No arguement from me right now about the system, however, correct me if I am wrong, you telling us that Skiles will not tweak his system if and when we do get a true star? He would not be coaching if he didn't. You go with what you have. We are a team of role players. I can see skiles with a training camp in place tweaking his system to bring out the strengths of a true star.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

We can't win a title with the current group?

Last season, the Pistons were the defending champs. We split the season series with them 2-2.

Right now the Spurs are the defending champs. We just handed them their first home loss in 30-something games not long after losing to them in OT.

To win a title, you have to go through the current champs. It sure seems to me as if we are on the right track...


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> If by all-star you mean, some mid-level second-tier talent like Peja, then yes, we can definitely sign an all-star. But what exactly are we going to do with an all-star ?
> 
> I find it very ironic that for all this talk about how great and effective our selfless play and defense is, we still want to trade for that one "superstar." How is a superstar player in general going to work under Skiles ? The only other established superstar player he's coached he pissed off, and he's a defense-playing league-leading point guard.
> 
> Our system is *designed to make something out of nothing*, rather than something more out of something. With our current management and system, I think the farthest we can go is 2nd maybe 3rd round of the playoffs. We'll be good for the playoffs almost every year. However based on his history of dealing with talented players, I don't think our coach really has that mindset of doing everything possible to win a championship.


Stop hatin. You make it sound as if the Bulls dont have any talent on their team as it stands right now. I know it hurts to see Artest and Brand lighting up the league; it stings me too, but seriously Skiles was a strong nomination for coach of the year last year while developing a very young team and leading them too the third best record in the league last year. 

This year we're off to a faster start than last year, with lots of close games. Our play has been inconsistent and that has hurt us, but at times it's been stellar. Our guys are adjusting to a late trade, and finally coming together. I see a lot of continued growth from this group.

The only player you might say we're not developing correctly is Ben, but he's also a traditional slow starter. Once he picks his game up, which I know he will, we'll have that deadly assassin lighting up the 4th quarter again. Along with Chandler's All-Star worth 4th quarter D we have a winning formula.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Bullsville, our defense is not as good as it was last year, at least not yet. If we can get back to playing solid D t/o the game and t/o the season we will be ok. 

As for winning a title with this team and you used detroit as an example they have 4 players scoring over 14 a game, we have 1. They score more and allow less than we do. They allow 91, right now we allow 97. We need to get that down. 

We have holes to fill and Detroit seems to be solid in all positions. 

This summer we will know better if this team was built for a serious run at the title.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Some of this is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd be fine with Duhon and Pierce in the backcourt with Gordon off the bench until he learns to protect the ball better and run an offense.

I would rather have Hinrich + Pierce in the backcourt with Duhon off the bench. Pierce being our go-to guy makes Gordon a little more expendable.

However, with the PG situation in Boston I can see why Boston fans might prefer Hinrich over Gordon. They have Ricky as their go-to guy and Gordon isn't ready to run the point full time.

Maybe a package of Duhon + Deng or Duhon + Sweets might be more tempting to them, although I think I like these packages less than giving up Hinrich or Gordon given our team makeup & depth.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Bullsville, our defense is not as good as it was last year, at least not yet. If we can get back to playing solid D t/o the game and t/o the season we will be ok.
> 
> As for winning a title with this team and you used detroit as an example they have 4 players scoring over 14 a game, we have 1. They score more and allow less than we do. They allow 91, right now we allow 97. We need to get that down.
> 
> ...


I like the Detroit analogy. Just look back to how they came together. They collected a talented and deep team, and then made a move for a star big in Wallace that really put them over the edge. We're in a similar position. Our defense will improve as the year goes on - provided Tyson stays healthy and out of foul trouble.


----------



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

truebluefan said:


> No arguement from me right now about the system, however, correct me if I am wrong, you telling us that Skiles will not tweak his system if and when we do get a true star? He would not be coaching if he didn't. You go with what you have. We are a team of role players. I can see skiles with a training camp in place tweaking his system to bring out the strengths of a true star.


Of course Skiles will try his best, but based on his history with Jason Kidd and a lot of our other "talented" players, it's hard for me to see him getting along with almost any superstar-caliber player.



> We can't win a title with the current group?
> 
> Last season, the Pistons were the defending champs. We split the season series with them 2-2.
> 
> ...


These are regular season games. We've prided ourselves on putting 100% on all the time. Teams will have their on-off nights. We can always catch some teams off-guard with our efforts. However, come playoff time, teams will almost always be on.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> One of the down sides of this trade is the fact that Pierce has not made a difference in Boston despite his game. They are 5-8. Would the Bulls be 8-3 or 9-2 with Pierce? Or would we still be 6-5?


That's a valid question, but you have to look at both teams . . . Pierce on the Celtics is a superstar who is trying to play with way too many kids and guys like Blount who don't want to play there anyway. A guy like that on this Bulls team where we have a winning coach and some good players - AS LONG AS HE BUYS INTO THE SYSTEM - I think would be a certain lift for us and bring us into real contender status.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> No arguement from me right now about the system, however, correct me if I am wrong, you telling us that Skiles will not tweak his system if and when we do get a true star? He would not be coaching if he didn't. You go with what you have. We are a team of role players. I can see skiles with a training camp in place tweaking his system to bring out the strengths of a true star.


I could also see him not doing that.

You couldn't imagine him having a run in or two with a guy like Pierce? Pierce complaining about only playing 39 minutes instead of 44? Pierce getting benched if someone else is hot in the 4th quarter?

All that stuff is happening now with Doc Rivers, who appears to be much more of a "players coach" than Skiles is.

-----------

In any case, if a trade is out there that doesn't stupidly screw our cap room for next year, then it's worth making, because every dollaw we pay Thomas is a dollar wasted. At least if we trade him for another expiring contract we'd get a little bit of production out of it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Some of this is interesting:
> 
> Idiots.


Why does all of that make them idiots?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Of course Skiles will try his best, but based on his history with Jason Kidd and a lot of our other "talented" players, it's hard for me to see him getting along with almost any superstar-caliber player.
> 
> 
> These are regular season games. We've prided ourselves on putting 100% on all the time. Teams will have their on-off nights. We can always catch some teams off-guard with our efforts. However, come playoff time, teams will almost always be on.


Legit compaint. I cannot comment further on this because I do not know the story completely about Kidd and Skiles. Both men were much younger then. A lot has changed.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I could also see him not doing that.
> 
> You couldn't imagine him having a run in or two with a guy like Pierce? Pierce complaining about only playing 39 minutes instead of 44? Pierce getting benched if someone else is hot in the 4th quarter?
> 
> ...


yes Rivers is dealing with this but his team is 5-8. If Pierce complains about 5 minutes a game and the team is 9-3, then who is pierce more concerned about? Certainly not the team or even winning if that is the case. And how is this Skiles fault? I thought a coach is about winning. 

Somehow, I feel that if a star comes in here and we win, then all of this speculation will be for naught. However, if we falter, then all of the posters that said gloom and doom when we signed Skiles will be refreshed and even more determined to make their point heard. If that happens then they deserve to be heard. I am not of that camp, at least not yet. Call me old fashioned, I feel that a coach should be able to coach a team. Not the players.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Some of this is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BTW, I would replace Gordon with Hinrich in the Pierce trade I suggest:

Chicago trades: Hinrich, Nocioni, Thomas, Chicago's '06 first rounder

Boston trades: Pierce, Blount, Gomes

If we did this, Skiles would have to give Gordon some minutes at point guard. I think Duhon, Pargo, and Gordon could hold down the fort at the 1.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Why does all of that make them idiots?


It was my attempt at sarcasm, mainly in response to the giant thread from a couple of days where I was repeatedly told that Gordon was a much better player than Hinrich.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> yes Rivers is dealing with this but his team is 5-8. If Pierce complains about 5 minutes a game and the team is 9-3, then who is pierce more concerned about? Certainly not the team or even winning if that is the case. And how is this Skiles fault? I thought a coach is about winning.
> 
> Somehow, I feel that if a star comes in here and we win, then all of this speculation will be for naught. However, if we falter, then all of the posters that said gloom and doom when we signed Skiles will be refreshed and even more determined to make their point heard. If that happens then they deserve to be heard. I am not of that camp, at least not yet. Call me old fashioned, I feel that a coach should be able to coach a team. Not the players.


OK, respectfully, there's a whole lot of this I disagree with.
1. I don't see how its ok if Pierce complains because they're losing. Earlier in the year when Thomas was actually doing his complaining... we were losing. Does that make his complaining ok? Or how about if we'd played Jalen Rose a bunch less, even though, flawed though he was, he was our best player. You know he'd have *****ed about it, but he'd have a point because even if he wasn't great he was certainly better than guys who'd be getting his burn.

Similarly, earlier in the year, while I'm not a huge fan of Thomas, I think he's a better basketball player than a guy like Pike or Songaila. We were losing with those guys on the court while Thomas sat. Does that mean he had a right to complain?

2. Posters have a right to their opinions in either case. I don't see how lumping them into groups is a step in the right direction.

3. Coaches should be able to coach, but in practice they don't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want because they depend on the respect and trust of their team. The one part I do agree with is that the coach should be about winning. But if the coach isn't going to put the best guys on the court (and I'm talking about over the longer run here, obviously, not an individual game tactic), then aren't the players right to question it?

Like everything else, coaches deserve respect when they earn respect. Just like you don't bench a guy who's generally played well (say Duhon or Hinrich) after only a couple of bad games, a coach deserves credit for the good decisions he's made over time, and I generally don't question those sort of game tactic bad decisions a coach inevitably makes sometimes because they've earned the right to have bad games too.

But... there's another side of that. Thomas hasn't earned star treatment, but he's probably earned something, and treating him like an undrafted free agent probably isn't the way to go either.

Hey, I'm not one of the guys who wanted Skiles gone. Watching him with a capable team, I think he's a very good coach. I wasn't one of the folks who said we should dump him this summer. But there are things that bother me with him, and one is that I don't know that he gives respect in the same way he expects it, and whether he can manage the kind of personalities you have to manage to be a championship level coach. The jury is out on that one as far as I'm concerned, and for once I'd have liked to see one of these situations turn out well instead of badly.

For once, I'd have liked to see Skiles, just to prove he can, take a guy and make him better rather than ****-canning him. Like I said before, that would have been a good thing.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> For once, I'd have liked to see Skiles, just to prove he can, take a guy and make him better rather than ****-canning him. Like I said before, that would have been a good thing.


What makes you think that's possible to do with Timmy? The guy doesn't practice hard, he doesn't give the effort that the coach demands of his players. End of story.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Call me old fashioned, I feel that a coach should be able to coach a team. Not the players.


And I'm in your camp altho I'm mostly new fashioned. But just to be devil's advocate this is a player's league. Still the happy combination of ying and yang dictates that the ballance be struck be attracting players that demand alot of themselves and respond to a coach who respects players that demand a lot of themselves. If we can match these personality types AND field a talented and balanced team we will be unstoppable. 

I think we're well on our way to that goal, with this next year clearly being a pivital time in shoring up our weak areas using cap space/ trade options, and then its time for Skiles to prove that he can ride these youngins to playoff glory.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

settinUpShop said:


> What makes you think that's possible to do with Timmy? The guy doesn't practice hard, he doesn't give the effort that the coach demands of his players. End of story.


Except that the recaps had Bulls sources expressly saying that Thomas did practice hard and that wasn't necessarily what was at issue.

Like I've said before, you can look at just about every great team in NBA history and pick out a guy who wasn't a self-motivator or was a less-than-enthusiastic practice player or didn't have pristine, crispy jib. To me, the ultimate/best byproduct of assembling a team full of character guys is that it creates a situation where you ought to be able to draw the BEST out of the non-jib guys. Shunning non-jib players altogether is leaving stones unturned and not doing all you possibly can to win, imo.


----------



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

Tim Thomas has surpassed Jon Starks as my least favorite player ever to wear a Bulls jersey. 

Hopefully the Bulls can trade Tim Thomas' contract because I doubt any team is going to choose to trade for Tim Thomas NBA Superstar. 










"Rainmaker !"


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

5 pages of thread over Tim Thomas. How are Eddie Robinson and Marcus Fizer doing these days?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

14 million dollars of Bulls fan's money being wasted on this?

I hope getting rid of Curry was worth all this. 

At least its clearly showing some on the problems this regime will face when dealing with many established NBA players.

"making something out of nothing" vs "turning something into something better".... that makes sense. We're really good at the first.

Chicago Grizzlies!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> Now for the sexy question : Who should get the lions share of the blame? Eddy? Pax? Skiles? TT?


The Abominable Dr. Barry Maron


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 14 million dollars of Bulls fan's money being wasted on this?
> 
> I hope getting rid of Curry was worth all this.
> 
> ...


Eh, if TT wasn't already widely considered a cancer before, I might agree with you on this point. I'm wondering whether we could have gotten Penny's expiring deal instead, but I imagine Isiah refused. 

Some good points being made about the organization's approach, but I just can't bother to get worked up about Tim freaking Thomas.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wow. Now people are using Tim Freaking Thomas- a member of the All-Cancer team long before he became a Bull- to bash Paxson. One of the greatest underachievers, both by talent and salary, in the NBA in the last decade, according to anyone who has ever spoken of him.

How low can you go?

This board truly is becoming unreadable sometimes IMHO, as much as I hate to say it.


----------



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

Since the Bulls now are down 2 players, shouldn't Pax get that 15 roster spot filled? 

I know that George Lynch doesn't address the Bulls lack of size but he does defend and he does have expirence with tough coaching. 

Rodney Rogers? 

Christain Lattner?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Like I've said before, you can look at just about every great team in NBA history and pick out a guy who wasn't a self-motivator or was a less-than-enthusiastic practice player or didn't have pristine, crispy jib. To me, the ultimate/best byproduct of assembling a team full of character guys is that it creates a situation where you ought to be able to draw the BEST out of the non-jib guys. Shunning non-jib players altogether is leaving stones unturned and not doing all you possibly can to win, imo.


Agree with this in general. I will say that if the expiring contract didn't motivate Thomas, he may have been a lost cause anyway. It's not like Tim Thomas is the difference b/t us and a championship.

But it's a troubling pattern.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Wow. Now people are using Tim Freaking Thomas- a member of the All-Cancer team long before he became a Bull- to bash Paxson. One of the greatest underachievers, both by talent and salary, in the NBA in the last decade, according to anyone who has ever spoken of him.


Didn't Paxson decide to trade for Tim Thomas?

If Paxson is not the most responsible for Thomas being a Bull, then who is?


I'm not so happy that my hard earned money is helping to pay Tim Thomas to chill in NYC.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Some good points being made about the organization's approach, but I just can't bother to get worked up about Tim freaking Thomas.


Yah, I can't either. I kind of wish we would let him play, since I think he could help, but I understand that the only way Skiles can do his thang is to have a zero-tolerance approach.

I only get disgusted when I think about the amount of money he's being paid and that nearly everyone agrees that we need to pick up a center or power forward.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Agree with this in general. I will say that if the expiring contract didn't motivate Thomas, he may have been a lost cause anyway. It's not like Tim Thomas is the difference b/t us and a championship.
> 
> But it's a troubling pattern.


Oh, there's no question about it: if Thomas isn't a lost cause already, he's within spitting distance. He doesn't get it, never has.

But if your example of Tim Thomas costing us the championship was (intentionally) far-fetched, to me it's equally far-fetched to suggest (and I'm not saying you did here) that Tim Thomas couldn't have helped us win a ball game or three this year. He's pretty talented, and I really don't think whatever bad stuff was happening between him and Skiles would have ruined any of our good guys' jibs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Eh, if TT wasn't already widely considered a cancer before, I might agree with you on this point. I'm wondering whether we could have gotten Penny's expiring deal instead, but I imagine Isiah refused.


Interestingly, the Knicks seem to be doing the same thing with Penny that we're doing with Thomas.

Do you really think if Paxson insisted on this, that Thomas would ****-can the whole trade? I don't. Why would he? And of course, the Bulls only "had" to make the trade because of circumstances they created.

If anything, it was probably Paxson's choice to take back Thomas. If you remember, Ron Adams gave a favorable report on him a while back with the undertone that maybe he just needed to be in a good environment. It was certainly a reasonable chance for Pax to take a 28 year old Thomas who, if given the opportunity, might help, rather than a 35 year old Penny who probably couldn't help at all.

Of course, the way things turned out, Thomas appears to have actually harmed things. Not by a lot, but if they're concluding the best thing is to not even have the guy around the team, they have to be concluding he's a negative effect. And he doesn't seem to have been given much opportunity to do anything.

So that's the part that doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, take a flyer on a guy like that if you might actually have a roll for him. But if you're pretty sure you don't, why take the chance of having a negative guy when you can get someone like Penny, who's been favorably spoken of by Skiles and is likely to accept a minimal playing role at this point in his career?

It's not a big deal either way, but it seems like a move that didn't work out too well.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

settinUpShop said:


> What makes you think that's possible to do with Timmy? The guy doesn't practice hard, he doesn't give the effort that the coach demands of his players. End of story.


So you're calling John Paxson a liar? 

I don't know if it was possible with Timmy, but I know it's possible to do and I know it hasn't been done by Scott Skiles with the Bulls.

It's sort of watching a guy strike out all the time. Some pitches are unhittable, and its hard to tell sometimes which ones are unhittable. But you watch a bunch go by, and chances hard a couple of them could have been hit.

I mean, it's not like I'm saying it's the end of the world or anything, but yeah, at some point it'd be nice to see the pattern change.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> OK, respectfully, there's a whole lot of this I disagree with.
> 1. I don't see how its ok if Pierce complains because they're losing. Earlier in the year when Thomas was actually doing his complaining... we were losing. Does that make his complaining ok? Or how about if we'd played Jalen Rose a bunch less, even though, flawed though he was, he was our best player. You know he'd have *****ed about it, but he'd have a point because even if he wasn't great he was certainly better than guys who'd be getting his burn.
> 
> Similarly, earlier in the year, while I'm not a huge fan of Thomas, I think he's a better basketball player than a guy like Pike or Songaila. We were losing with those guys on the court while Thomas sat. Does that mean he had a right to complain?
> ...


ok..



> Similarly, earlier in the year, while I'm not a huge fan of Thomas, I think he's a better basketball player than a guy like Pike or Songaila. We were losing with those guys on the court while Thomas sat. Does that mean he had a right to complain?


and now we are winning with thomas not playing. agree TT seems to be a better player than pike. But he is not a better player than Deng and nocioni. So therefore, would have not played more than 10-15 minutes a game. Does Pike complain? I dont know, I am asking. As for Song, isn't he pf or has he played sf? TT is not a pf.

As for Rose, TT comparison, Rose was the better player. To me the situation is not similar. And in defense of Rose, he was our SF! (I take that statement back. We did have Marshall for a while but he played pf as well) We never had any depth there, remember? As for TT, he is behind both Nocioni and Deng imo. Rose had no one to compete with him so why would we 'set' Rose? I fail to see the connection. Again, I think TT was not good enough to beat out deng and nocioni. That s my opinion. 



> Posters have a right to their opinions in either case. I don't see how lumping them into groups is a step in the right direction.


I was making a prophecy if what hurdle6 says comes true. There are two factions and that being said there are some people that don't belong to either one. I was not lumping everyone into a group. At least not intentionally. And I was not belittling the group that believes Skiles is not capable of coaching a star. I just disagree. I will go on even further to say that if Skiles proves them wrong, the posters from the other camp will also come out in numbers and speak out. That is what the factions do. Just go back and look at the threads. 



> Coaches should be able to coach, *but in practice they don't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want because they depend on the respect and trust of their team.* The one part I do agree with is that the coach should be about winning. But if the coach isn't going to put the best guys on the court (and I'm talking about over the longer run here, obviously, not an individual game tactic), then aren't the players right to question it?


I must have played for all the wrong coaches then. What the coach says is gold. What he teaches is the rule. I will have to disagree with you. In practice that is where he instills his system. He does so respectfully of course. As for TT right to complain? Sure. Why not. But then I also think that if he is as good as he thinks he is? No question he would have beaten out the players that are playing ahead of him and made it difficult for Skiles to set him down! I dont think Skiles has an agenda. He may have, but I dont see it. 

As for Skiles taking guys and making him better, I hope you did not mean TT. He has been the same player for a long time. If you mean the players we have? No arguement from me. I want that too and no he has not done that yet. The players we have now seem to be the way they were last year except for Duhon and Nocioni and one can question if Skiles had any influence on their improvement or if this was their own adjustments.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Agree with this in general. I will say that if the expiring contract didn't motivate Thomas, he may have been a lost cause anyway. It's not like Tim Thomas is the difference b/t us and a championship.
> 
> But it's a troubling pattern.


Great point!!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Interestingly, the Knicks seem to be doing the same thing with Penny that we're doing with Thomas.
> 
> Do you really think if Paxson insisted on this, that Thomas would ****-can the whole trade? I don't. Why would he? And of course, the Bulls only "had" to make the trade because of circumstances they created.
> 
> ...


I guess we won't know what Pax's preference is...I was just thinking along these lines: a) TT is generally considered a lazy malcontent, which obviously isn't the kind of guy Pax would specifically target b) We have Deng and Nocioni at TT's normal position, and they're both younger, work their butts off, and are arguably better players as far as making winning plays if not talent c) Penny would seem to be a viable option for 10-20 minutes a night at the big SG. He's better than Pike, isn't he? d) their contract situations are nearly the same, so in that sense they're almost interchangeable

maybe Pax thought TT could be salvaged...he IS still in his prime age-wise and is obviously oozing natural gifts. I'm just not sure I think that's why he'd want him, given that we have two young SFs that we're already pretty high on. It's tough to know for sure, unless Paxson comments on it directly (and Pax does comment directly on a lot of things, so you never know).


I've actually been wondering about this, though. Did the AD/TT swap HAVE to happen to get the numbers to work in the trade? Aren't their contract amounts pretty similar? I'm sure it's been discussed before and I'm forgetting, but I'm curious. In other words, I miss AD.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Except that the recaps had Bulls sources expressly saying that Thomas did practice hard and that wasn't necessarily what was at issue.
> 
> Like I've said before, you can look at just about every great team in NBA history and pick out a guy who wasn't a self-motivator or was a less-than-enthusiastic practice player or didn't have pristine, crispy jib. To me, the ultimate/best byproduct of assembling a team full of character guys is that it creates a situation where you ought to be able to draw the BEST out of the non-jib guys. Shunning non-jib players altogether is leaving stones unturned and not doing all you possibly can to win, imo.


Are there actually quotes from Bulls sources saying Thomas was practicing hard? I remember a quote from Paxson saying something along the lines of "he practiced yesterday and that's good" but even that didn't strike me as terribly positive.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> I miss AD.


Me too.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I've actually been wondering about this, though. Did the AD/TT swap HAVE to happen to get the numbers to work in the trade? Aren't their contract amounts pretty similar? I'm sure it's been discussed before and I'm forgetting, but I'm curious. In other words, I miss AD.


Paxson has said AD was traded to make the numbers work.

Zeke's offered Hardaway to a few teams, including Portland (they said no). He's offered AD around, too, according to the rumors (and I think Portland was one of those teams, too). I'm sure he knew then he wanted to keep Hardaway to trade later in the season and didn't offer him as part of the trade.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> ok..
> 
> and now we are winning with thomas not playing. agree TT seems to be a better player than pike. But he is not a better player than Deng and nocioni. So therefore, would have not played more than 10-15 minutes a game. Does Pike complain? I dont know, I am asking. As for Song, isn't he pf or has he played sf? TT is not a pf.


I dunno, but wasn't Skiles saying that Noc was really best at PF? And wasn't their a lot of talk (I think Adams said it too) that TT could play several positions?



> As for Rose, TT comparison, Rose was the better player. To me the situation is not similar. And in defense of Rose, he was our SF! (I take that statement back. We did have Marshall for a while but he played pf as well) We never had any depth there, remember? As for TT, he is behind both Nocioni and Deng imo. Rose had no one to compete with him so why would we 'set' Rose? I fail to see the connection. Again, I think TT was not good enough to beat out deng and nocioni. That s my opinion.


OK, I see your point, that was too hypothetical on my part about Rose. 



> I was making a prophecy if what hurdle6 says comes true. There are two factions and that being said there are some people that don't belong to either one. I was not lumping everyone into a group. At least not intentionally. And I was not belittling the group that believes Skiles is not capable of coaching a star. I just disagree. I will go on even further to say that if Skiles proves them wrong, the posters from the other camp will also come out in numbers and speak out. That is what the factions do. Just go back and look at the threads.


Yeah, I know it occurs that people divide up on such things, but there's no need to encourage it. If it's a natural tendency it's one that ought to be fought because it leads to a lot of stupidity and misunderstanding. *As this thread is unfolding, I see particular people saying more and more stuff to provoke the "other faction" instead of just honestly addressing the situation.*

Once that happens, the tendency if for people to feel place themselves in one of those groups and take those general slights as being directed at them. Which is not a good thing for the board.



> I must have played for all the wrong coaches then. What the coach says is gold. What he teaches is the rule. I will have to disagree with you. In practice that is where he instills his system. He does so respectfully of course.


I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong, it's just that you're a lot older than me  I'm not saying it's the way it "should" be, but the reality is that some coaches are more able to convince guys to buy into their systems than others. Some coaches will work harder to reach a talented guy and get him to buy in. Maybe they shouldn't have to, but if the end result is that it results in more wins, that's the bottom line, isn't it?



> As for TT right to complain? Sure. Why not. But then I also think that if he is as good as he thinks he is? No question he would have beaten out the players that are playing ahead of him and made it difficult for Skiles to set him down! I dont think Skiles has an agenda. He may have, but I dont see it.
> 
> As for Skiles taking guys and making him better, I hope you did not mean TT. He has been the same player for a long time. If you mean the players we have? No arguement from me. I want that too and no he has not done that yet. The players we have now seem to be the way they were last year except for Duhon and Nocioni and one can question if Skiles had any influence on their improvement or if this was their own adjustments.


I dunno... to me it's not so much an issue of talent but an issue of whether Skiles can be flexible and get the most out of different guys. TT has been the same player for a long time, but this is the first instance in which nobody is getting anything out of him. 

Maybe that's a better way to put it. Can Skiles get the most out of a guy he's capable of getting. They're getting less out of Thomas than I think they're capable of getting. It's not a big deal because he's not a big time player, but it's still less than optimal.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Are there actually quotes from Bulls sources saying Thomas was practicing hard? I remember a quote from Paxson saying something along the lines of "he practiced yesterday and that's good" but even that didn't strike me as terribly positive.


From the McGraw piece:



> According to team sources, Thomas worked hard in practice but didn’t embrace coach Scott Skiles’ system. No matter what Thomas did, the Bulls weren’t anxious to send Deng or Nocioni to the bench.


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=126507


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What this really comes down to is whether Skiles can deal with guys who have oversized egos. Almost every basketball player and coach, Skiles included here, has an oversized ego. So far, Skiles has not shown that he'd stroke a guy to get the most out of him.

The obvious point is so what? Guys like ERob and Thomas weren't good enough to deserve that. But when and if we get someone that is, say Paul Pierce, does Skiles implement "adjustments" for Pierce?

If he does, he runs the risk of alienating everyone else.

If he doesn't, then there's the risk of having a big star type player who's unhappy.

The solution to me seems to be to try and figure out how to be flexible with guys before it gets to the point where being flexible at all starts to undermine your authority. Put differently, if the entire source of your authority ends up being "my way or the highway", then eventually you'll be hitting the road yourself.

From that perspective, I'd rather see the Bulls make things work with a guy of questionable jib like Thomas before they *HAVE* to make things worse with a super talented guy of questionable jib like Pierce or Maggette. 

Maybe he has and we just don't see it so much- I've never been very impressed with Tyson's jib, and Skiles once coached Rodney Rogers into a 6th man of the year award, so there is some precedent to thinking he will. But to me, it's an open question.


----------



## SDBullsFan (Oct 4, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> BTW, I would replace Gordon with Hinrich in the Pierce trade I suggest:
> 
> Chicago trades: Hinrich, Nocioni, Thomas, Chicago's '06 first rounder
> 
> ...


Wow.

You do realize the biggest offensive problems with the Bulls are turnovers and too many missed 3-pointers right? May God help the Bulls if Ben Gordon gets big minutes at the point.

Gordon IS overrated by Bulls fans. Don't get me wrong, I think he's great at what he does...score, but he doesn't bring anything else to the table. Instant offense is the role he'll fill throughout his career. The Bulls have their own Bobby Jackson.

I like Gordon, but please don't make him out to be the great player that he's not.

To think, the Bulls could've had Iguodala (my preferred pick). Not only is he a fantastic defender, but he's energetic, gives you 33+ STARTING minutes, and even scores more efficiently than Ben.

<sigh>

What could've been.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> From the McGraw piece:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=126507


Ah. I missed that the first time through.

I agree with what most everyone is saying about this, it's just Tim Thomas so there's no need to get worked up, but Skiles' ability to handle star players bears watching.

In this case I'm willing to give Skiles the benefit of the doubt because Tim Thomas isn't actually a star, just a guy who gets paid like one. Reading between the lines of the McGraw piece it seems that the reason Thomas didn't buy into Skiles' system was because the system didn't involve playing him very much. When we have a star quality player PT shouldn't be an issue.

I don't believe the fact that Thomas is a better player than Songaila and Pike is relevant. Those guys are averaging 8 and 15 MPG respectively. Thomas wasn't going to be a happy camper with 15 MPG.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

So now we're debating why Skiles wouldn't give TT any burn. The answer is simple...the guy doesn't play defense. Seriously, he just stands there. It's almost Rose-like. I'm sure he worked hard in alot of ways, but if he doesn't have the skill/drive/instinct to defend, Skiles won't play him unless he's got a seriously special skill offensively. And last I checked, he maxed out at about 14-15 ppg and didn't do a whole lot else. Deng and Nocioni give you that and more. He doesn't rebound. He doesn't block shots. Let him sit on his behind in NY. This is what $14M gets you in today's world of pro sports. Pax made the right call letting him stay away from the team. So we lost out on the AD for TT part of the trade. Big deal, we more than made up for that with the Curry for Sweets + 4 draft picks we got.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

narek said:


> Paxson has said AD was traded to make the numbers work.


Didn't have to be this way 

We could have accepted Mike Sweetney and Malik Rose 

It would have required us sending Pike off with cash considerations to a team with cap space to neutralise his cost 

It would have meant that Malik Rose , next year and the year after , would have been our Othella - that let's say we bring back to be a reserve post player behind Sweets and costs us $2M per 

The net differential would have meant Malik Rose would have sucked up an extra $4.5M in cap space next year and $5M the year after that 

Pax dealt AD so as not to take back Malik Rose which effectively lowered our available cap space down to around $14M - not $20M


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I agree with what most everyone is saying about this, it's just Tim Thomas so there's no need to get worked up, but Skiles' ability to handle star players bears watching.


Its not just Tim Thomas though, it’s the 14 million dollars the Bulls are paying him.

That’s a large chunk of the salary cap, and the Bulls are not a team that is going to threaten the luxury tax anytime soon.

The job of a GM is to maximize the value from the resources at his/her disposal.

Paxson decided to pay a guy 14 million this season to sit in NYC. That's a waste, IMO. I wish that money was being put to use on productive players. Paxson should not have acquired a highly paid player that would not fit into this system. 

Nobody is really surprised that Thomas didn’t fit here, right?

(The fact that Skiles refused to deal with Thomas is also troubling, but at least he's showing that he's not a hypocrite. I have to respect that.)


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not just Tim Thomas though, it’s the 14 million dollars the Bulls are paying him.
> 
> That’s a large chunk of the salary cap, and the Bulls are not a team that is going to threaten the luxury tax anytime soon.
> 
> ...


You've tried using that line before, and I just don't buy it. Pax didn't CHOOSE to pay anybody $14M. Krause consolidated our young talented players via trade and CHOSE to take on Rose's massive contract. Pax merely decided that he'd rather pay Antonio Davis $14M than Jalen Rose, and that he'd rather pay TT $14M to sit than to have Eddy Curry on the QO fighting about DNA rights and all that stuff. It's the lesser of the evils, so to speak. Thank you Jerry Krause.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Tim Thomas will be in a Bulls uniform again this year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> You've tried using that line before, and I just don't buy it. Pax didn't CHOOSE to pay anybody $14M. Krause consolidated our young talented players via trade and CHOSE to take on Rose's massive contract. Pax merely decided that he'd rather pay Antonio Davis $14M than Jalen Rose, and that he'd rather pay TT $14M to sit than to have Eddy Curry on the QO fighting about DNA rights and all that stuff. It's the lesser of the evils, so to speak. Thank you Jerry Krause.


1.) Krause was against trading Artest and Miller for Rose.

2.) Paxson chose to acquire TT. Paxson also chose to let TT collect paychecks while hanging with his baby-mamas in NYC. He could have made another deal or resigned Eddy and kept AD. He could have told Skiles to just play the guy. He chose to acquire TT. He chose to pay him to do nothing. His choice. No questions.

3.) Tim Thomas being paid for 0 minutes played for the rest of the season? That's the biggest waste I've ever heard of. Especially when he's healthy and wants to play. Man, "the right way" sure is expensive sometimes. Maybe it will all lead to some kind of success some day (division title, conference title… heck… playoff series win). Cap Space better be worth all of this. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Its staggering the amount of money the Bulls have doled out to EROB, Pippen and now Tim Thomas since Paxson took over to not play basketball.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) Krause was against trading Artest and Miller for Rose.


Yup. It would take some doing to find links since it happened so long ago, but I clearly remember multiple articles coming out saying that ownership forced Krause to make the deal, ostensibly due to his mental, financial (he had to take a loan from the Players' Association), and personal (entourage) issues.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

bullsville said:


> We can't win a title with the current group?
> 
> Last season, the Pistons were the defending champs. We split the season series with them 2-2.
> 
> ...


I don't think the Bulls could win consecutive seven game series against the Detroits/Miami's/Indianas of the East *to get to* the Spurs.

But what do I know?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I can't either. I kind of wish we would let him play, since I think he could help.


Who would you sit --> Nocioni or Deng?

Why?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not just Tim Thomas though, it’s the 14 million dollars the Bulls are paying him.
> 
> That’s a large chunk of the salary cap, and the Bulls are not a team that is going to threaten the luxury tax anytime soon.
> 
> ...


I'm sure John Paxson wishes he could use the 14 million dollars on productive players too.

This is hardly a unique situation. A bunch of guys with big deals have been bought out or paid not to play by a number of NBA teams over the past couple of seasons, it's unavoidable given the nature of the CBA and the cap. Paxson felt Curry had to be moved (please let us not debate the logic behind that again), he wanted Sweetney and the NY first. In order to make the salaries match he had to either take Tim Thomas or Malik Rose. Neither was going to play much, Thomas has the more cap friendly deal. Seems like the right move to me.

What else could've been done? I guess we could play Thomas just to do it, but what's the point of that? Tim Thomas is Tim Thomas whether he's getting paid 14 million dollars or the league minimum. Just like Ben Gordon is Ben Gordon whether he was picked third or 30th. I wasn't nuts about the Curry deal, but Sweetney is better than I expected and the NY first is looking pretty good right now.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) Krause was against trading Artest and Miller for Rose.
> 
> 2.) Paxson chose to acquire TT. Paxson also chose to let TT collect paychecks while hanging with his baby-mamas in NYC. He could have made another deal or resigned Eddy and kept AD. He could have told Skiles to just play the guy. He chose to acquire TT. He chose to pay him to do nothing. His choice. No questions.
> 
> 3.) Tim Thomas being paid for 0 minutes played for the rest of the season? That's the biggest waste I've ever heard of. Especially when he's healthy and wants to play. Man, "the right way" sure is expensive sometimes. Maybe it will all lead to some kind of success some day (division title, conference title… heck… playoff series win). Cap Space better be worth all of this. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Its staggering the amount of money the Bulls have doled out to EROB, Pippen and now Tim Thomas since Paxson took over to not play basketball.


1. Whoever decided to make that deal is kind of irrelevant. Paxson is still dealing with the fallout.

2. Eddy wasn't going to play for the Bulls. Like it or not, that's the fact.

3. It's not a waste. It's the cost of acquiring Mike Sweetney and a lottery pick.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'm sure John Paxson wishes he could use the 14 million dollars on productive players too.
> 
> This is hardly a unique situation. A bunch of guys with big deals have been bought out or paid not to play by a number of NBA teams over the past couple of seasons, it's unavoidable given the nature of the CBA and the cap.


Yeah. It lasts one season.

It's not like we're Orlando and just threw away a lottery pick that we'll probably never see.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Who would you sit --> Nocioni or Deng?
> 
> Why?


I think Thomas would be a nice 15 minute a game role player. Stretches the defense with his outside shot. Could play the "point-forward" position for stretches.

He could take a portion of the minutes allocated to Othella/Songalia/Nocioni.

Also, since injuries are always a concern, its nice to have talented backups to plug in if needed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> 1. Whoever decided to make that deal is kind of irrelevant. Paxson is still dealing with the fallout.
> 
> 2. Eddy wasn't going to play for the Bulls. Like it or not, that's the fact.
> 
> 3. It's not a waste. It's the cost of acquiring Mike Sweetney and a lottery pick.


1.) I only bring it up when someone hammers Krause for the Rose trade.

2.) Paxson still could have been proactive and traded Eddy last year or worked out another deal with another team or get a better deal from Isiah. He painted himself into a corner and TT was the poison pill.

3.) Its a waste for this season. Once again, we have to wait for the future. Sweetney is not worth TT's salary and what he's currently making. Its wasteful for this season at the very least.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I wasn't nuts about the Curry deal, but Sweetney is better than I expected and the NY first is looking pretty good right now.


I still would rather have Curry and AD for this season.

I'd like the primary focus to be this season, given that we were the #3 team in the east last year we should not have to settle for regression.

Things could turn out OK.

More waiting. 

Its still a titanic waste of money. At least Rose and AD would suit up and play....and both were decent with obvious warts.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) I only bring it up when someone hammers Krause for the Rose trade.
> 
> 2.) Paxson still could have been proactive and traded Eddy last year or worked out another deal with another team or get a better deal from Isiah. He painted himself into a corner and TT was the poison pill.
> 
> 3.) Its a waste for this season. Once again, we have to wait for the future. Sweetney is not worth TT's salary and what he's currently making. Its wasteful for this season at the very least.


1. Fair enough.

2. That's true. The Curry situation should've been figured out earlier in the off-season. I'm not sure if it would've yielded different results, we can't know that, but leaving it until the last minute was a mistake.

3. I think the salary cap structure of the league makes this unavoidable. I still don't see a better scenario that doesn't involve keeping Curry. I love AD but he's making 14 million dollars this season to average 4 points and 5 boards a game. That's not exactly bang for your buck either.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> 3. I think the salary cap structure of the league makes this unavoidable. I still don't see a better scenario that doesn't involve keeping Curry. I love AD but he's making 14 million dollars this season to average 4 points and 5 boards a game. That's not exactly bang for your buck either.


I agree that Rose was overpaid and that AD was even more overpaid... but shelling out that kind of money to a healthy player to sit around disgusts me. 

I'll just have to get over it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Didn't have to be this way
> 
> We could have accepted Mike Sweetney and Malik Rose
> 
> ...


Or they maybe could have found another team to take Rose or Taylor directly from the Knicks

Bulls get Sweetney, NY's #1, Jackson
Knicks get Curry
Some Team under the cap gets Taylor/Rose and either 2 second round picks or the Bulls #1 pick. I think both the Knicks and the Bulls could theoretically throw in $3M, making for $6M in cash which would effectively pay for a year or Rose.

For us, it'd effectively be AD for our 1st rounder and $3M.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The Bulls are 6-5. Looking back at the "November predicitons" thread, that's better than most people thought we would be doing.

We are playing .750 ball at home and .429 on the road. If we play the rest of the season at those percentages, we'll win 48 games (and there is no reason to expect we won't continue to play that well, as of now we have faced the 5th toughest schedule in the league). Most people here don't expect us to win that many.

Who's to say that we wouldn't have a *worse* record if we still had AD? Noc has played very well at PF as of late, he'd be getting less minutes if AD were still around.

Since we have exceeded almost everyone's expectations so far, how can anyone have room to complain? Things sure seem to be working out quite well with the group we have.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Who's to say that we wouldn't have a *worse* record if we still had AD? Noc has played very well at PF as of late, he'd be getting less minutes if AD were still around.


I think AD's value to us was more in his ability to fill in at center and play fairly rugged post defense. He's definitely a better option at backup C than any of the smallish PFs we have right now.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> (and there is no reason to expect we won't continue to play that well, as of now we have faced the 5th toughest schedule in the league).


Where did you get that info from? I'm not doubting it. We have two big road trips in a schedule and we've got through one.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree that Rose was overpaid and that AD was even more overpaid... but shelling out that kind of money to a healthy player to sit around disgusts me.
> 
> I'll just have to get over it.


Pretty much. Hopefully once we get out from under the Rose deal after this season we won't make the same mistake again.

But that's just the way things work in sports these days. The majority of big money deals end up looking pretty bad after a couple seasons. It's the same in baseball (ARod, Manny, Chan Ho Park, Darren Dreifort, Sammy Sosa, Jim Thome etc...), and would be in football if the NFL had gauranteed contracts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Pretty much. Hopefully once we get out from under the Rose deal after this season we won't make the same mistake again.
> 
> But that's just the way things work in sports these days. The majority of big money deals end up looking pretty bad after a couple seasons. It's the same in baseball (ARod, Manny, Chan Ho Park, Darren Dreifort, Sammy Sosa, Jim Thome etc...), and would be in football if the NFL had gauranteed contracts.


Not to pick nits, but were any of those players being paid exorbinant sums while healthy and willing to play, only to have the team that aquired them say "no thanks?"

Its not so much the overpaid due to injury or age that bothers me... its the fact that TT is healthy and ready to play and the Bulls are choosing not to play him.

I think there is a difference between the players you are mentioning and the TT situation.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Is there a way to get Ruben Patterson? Portland needs to get rid of him and we need to dump TT. 

Eddie Basden has not addressed the big defensive guard issue and in fact Skiles has said he has not shown he can play good defense yet for this club. Maybe a trade will be beneficial for Ruben.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> Is there a way to get Ruben Patterson? Portland needs to get rid of him and we need to dump TT.
> 
> Eddie Basden has not addressed the big defensive guard issue and in fact Skiles has said he has not shown he can play good defense yet for this club. Maybe a trade will be beneficial for Ruben.


Is his deal expiring? If so, I'd consider that. Patterson has had some real issues off the court, but he typically plays balls-out when he's on the court and definitely plays solid defense. Not sure Pax would touch him with a 50-ft pole, though.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not to pick nits, but were any of those players being paid exorbinant sums while healthy and willing to play, only to have the team that aquired them say "no thanks?"
> 
> Its not so much the overpaid due to injury or age that bothers me... its the fact that TT is healthy and ready to play and the Bulls are choosing not to play him.
> 
> I think there is a difference between the players you are mentioning and the TT situation.


I wasn't trying to draw direct parallels between Tim Thomas and baseball players, just noting that the trend in sports these days is to sign guys to really big deals and wind up regretting it. If anything my comment was more about Jalen Rose than Thomas.

The CBA's of the individual sports dictate how these contracts end up getting handled. In the NFL they'll just cut the guy without financial consequence. In MLB there a great deal more flexibility in terms of the salary cap and trades can be swung without matching salaries. If the NBA had a MLB style CBA I don't doubt that we could deal Thomas to some team, agree to pay part of his salary, and get something in return - much like the Sox just did with Jim Thome. Unfortunately for us it doesn't work that way - the NBA forces teams to trade for guys they don't want in order for deals to work. The Thomas situation would never happen in another sport. But variations on it have happened a bunch of times in the NBA over the past few seasons.


(actually, the only non NBA examples I can think of off the top of my head are Damion Easley with the Marlins or Tigers a couple years ago and LaVarr Arrington this season with the Skins. You could throw Keyshawn Johnson and Terrell Owens in there - but discipline related stuff that warrants suspension seems like a different kind of thing)


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Or they maybe could have found another team to take Rose or Taylor directly from the Knicks
> 
> Bulls get Sweetney, NY's #1, Jackson
> Knicks get Curry
> ...


I think the only teams that could have done that would have been Atlanta , Charlotte and New Orleans . and given New Orleans situation they weren't in a position to take anyone 

An expansion franchise with limited cap room would not have taken Rose even with a pick thrown in 

Which leaves Atlanta ... I couldn't see them paying for Malik Rose and diminishing their cap room for trades for the next 3 seasons and/or free agency possibilities next summer and beyond 

At the time I though Rose could have gone back to the Spurs who reluctantly dealt him to get Nazr and Rasho could have been a better fit and circumvented us having to pay money for a quasi starter / reserve at $7M starting price next summer anyway

That would have left us with Rasho , Tyson , Sweetney , AD and Othella .as our 5 big rotation .without worrying about having to sign Smalik Allen and Uncle Owen 

And we still would have had $13M + 2 draft picks to play with over the summer ..been set upfront ..at the 3 and pretty much at the guards.. except for that superstar wing player but we would have picks , pieces and room to aquire 

This is what I would have done ... that 5 man rotation upfront I believe is the engine room of at least a progression to the 2nd round this season ... still with room organic growth in the young guns to progress further ( Tyson , Sweets and one of our draft picks to go for another big )

Secure at the 3 with Deng and Noc without having to entertain thoughts of Peja 

And we have 3 of guards set ... add one more from the draft ..maybe a vet resigning in the form of a Pike ...and we've still got room for the wing stud 

The organic growth I mentioned at Center / PF with Tyson and Sweets supported by a true big like Rasho and Othella + another draft pick - and also at forward and guard via Kirk, Chris , Noc , Luol , another draft pick + the stud to be named later... would have this team as a legit Eastern Conference contender within 2 - 3 seasons IMO 


I just think we may have missed an opportunity to deepen our front line and compete at a much higher level this year which would have given this team addditional confidence and a spur to develop as a legit contending team ahead of time 

I still think they will....it will just take a bit longer


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

darlets said:


> Where did you get that info from? I'm not doubting it. We have two big road trips in a schedule and we've got through one.


Sorry, that's from Jeff Sagarin.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jbulls said:


> 3. It's not a waste. It's the cost of acquiring Mike Sweetney and a lottery pick.


Bingo. It's well worth it if you ask me. TT was merely a by-product of the trade (actually his contract is an asset, even though TT isn't). 

Let me ask this, what if Sweetney were paid $14M for his 12 & 7, and TT were paid rookie scale money. Cumulatively speaking, it's the same thing. 

And like I said, Thomas can sit in NY for all I care if he's gonna be a distraction while he's here. It's 1 friggin year. Big deal. E-Rob was doing this for 3 years straight before we dropped him; he stole alot more than $14M (more like $20M). 

By the way, I liked Norm Van Lier's pregame comments today. Something to effect of, "If I'm making $14 million, you've got NOTHING to complain about. If I make that much playing basketball, I'd play in China, I'd play on the street corner, I'd drive the BUS."

And lastly, "Get outta my #2!" :laugh:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

So in all, it appears that this will be a move for the future more than it is a move for the present. We're not trying to "preserve chemistry"; I don't think Thomas has done anything particularly outlandish (although I don't think that it takes much; see, e.g., Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford low-key rumblings). I think Pax is just saying that getting this guy to integrate onto this squad, while not at all impossible, just isn't worth the trouble.

Pax is again couching this in terms of looking out for the player's needs. "Oh, he wants to play, but it's unfortunate that he can't right now, so we're going to accommodate him with a nice trade. How nice of us." 

Not that he doesn't feel that way, and I definitely do not read this personality or character into the way he tried to handle Eddy Curry, but this is a different situation. They could play him, but they refuse to. I wonder if the implicit understanding during the trade was that BOTH teams would release their big salary players.

I even wonder if something like that won't still happen, somehow. It might look suspicious, sure, but as long as they don't break the rules... AD might get waived somehow and TT might get waived at around the same time, and both players just might happen to choose to go back to their old squads.

Could we be seeing the return of AD?

If not, I am wanting a guy like Rashard Lewis, who can play the 3 and the 4, and score for us a lot. There's enough space for him and Deng both if Nocioni leaves in a trade.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> So in all, it appears that this will be a move for the future more than it is a move for the present. We're not trying to "preserve chemistry"; I don't think Thomas has done anything particularly outlandish (although I don't think that it takes much; see, e.g., Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford low-key rumblings). I think Pax is just saying that getting this guy to integrate onto this squad, while not at all impossible, just isn't worth the trouble.
> 
> Pax is again couching this in terms of looking out for the player's needs. "Oh, he wants to play, but it's unfortunate that he can't right now, so we're going to accommodate him with a nice trade. How nice of us."
> 
> ...


We should not wave Thomas even if AD might come back. We need his expiring contract for trade deadline time unless we make a favorable trade earlier than that. We need to keep that card in our deck.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> We should not wave Thomas even if AD might come back. We need his expiring contract for trade deadline time unless we make a favorable trade earlier than that. We need to keep that card in our deck.


But if there's nothing near the trade deadline that we like? We've seen Pax take back subpar talent in trades. 

I'd rather have his roster spot, at the least, if we're going to be paying him for nothing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

settinUpShop said:


> What makes you think that's possible to do with Timmy? The guy doesn't practice hard, he doesn't give the effort that the coach demands of his players. End of story.



how does anyone know that TT doesn't practice hard , all there is ...is inuendo and idle gossip .

skiles has never said so , or anyone else. in fact all thats really been said of Timmy has been praise by teammates and bulls staff.

could it be ...just possibly that the role TT would play on the 2nd unit(offensive sparkplug long distance shooter, essentially the role he played when he was 6th man of the year) has already been filled by gordon and the 2 of them would kill the defense, especially when coupled with the now small bulls frontcourt.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> What this really comes down to is whether Skiles can deal with guys who have oversized egos. Almost every basketball player and coach, Skiles included here, has an oversized ego. So far, Skiles has not shown that he'd stroke a guy to get the most out of him.
> 
> The obvious point is so what? Guys like ERob and Thomas weren't good enough to deserve that. But when and if we get someone that is, say Paul Pierce, does Skiles implement "adjustments" for Pierce?
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mikedc again.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

It's too bad, we could have used Thomas tonight vs the Magic, maybe we would have won if he had played............


----------



## southpark (Jul 5, 2003)

hahaha we did win....


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

southpark said:


> hahaha we did win....


You're lying, there is no way we could win without Thomas.

And there is also no way in hell this team that keeps trading away all it's talent could possibly be 7-5 without Tim Thomas, there's just no way.

I don't care what you say, it isn't possible.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

What i find amusing is, Thomas is literally screwing himself over. What team would want to take on a guy who *****es and moans more than a woman.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I think that Thomas has talent and would have been a solid contributor, but it came down to one reason that he isn't going to be plaing for the Bulls, and that's the cut of his jib :biggrin:. Paxson did not like the cut of his jib.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> If by all-star you mean, some mid-level second-tier talent like Peja, then yes, we can definitely sign an all-star. But what exactly are we going to do with an all-star ?
> 
> I find it very ironic that for all this talk about how great and effective our selfless play and defense is, we still want to trade for that one "superstar." How is a superstar player in general going to work under Skiles ? The only other established superstar player he's coached he pissed off, and he's a defense-playing league-leading point guard.
> 
> Our system is designed to make something out of nothing, rather than something more out of something. With our current management and system, I think the farthest we can go is 2nd maybe 3rd round of the playoffs. We'll be good for the playoffs almost every year. However based on his history of dealing with talented players, I don't think our coach really has that mindset of doing everything possible to win a championship.


I'm falling in line here..... :clap:


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

This stuff about Tim Thomas being in a different part of his career than the rest of the team, that he'd already had his payday... That's a diplomatic way of saying he didn't work hard enough, and they were afraid his laid-back-with-his-mind-on-his-money attitude was going to become poisonous to fragile young'uns if they allowed him to dress in the same area code with Ben Gordon. (Which, come to think of it, may be especially wise given the uncertainty regarding the location of Ben's head the last couple of days.) Antonio Davis was even older and made even more money and was in an even-more-different spot in his career, and tears were basically shed when he left, in marked contrast to TT's long goodbye. 

If you want to find differences, you could say, well, Tim Thomas is looking to have his time to shine, whereas AD has had his - that doesn't float either. The cap space is all about trying to acquire people in their prime, not get rid of them. AD is much jibbier than TT, and whoever we get in February or July will be too, and that's the ballgame. I admire Management's PR diplospeak in trying to keep TT from becoming an enemy and also in attempting to cancel out some of the bad vibes from DNAGate, but it's just spin. 

The differences between TT and O Harrington (for example) are more talent, more $ and less jib, and O stays and TT goes. It is the way things are in Bullsville. It is the Right Way, and it may also be in the process of being proven the correct way.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I'll agree with the overall sentiment stating that although Tim Thomas is a douche, and has been a douche everywhere he's ever gone, it would be encouraging, at some point, to see the Bulls incorporate a guy like that into our team successfully. 

Generally speaking, I'm okay with our right-wayism and emphasis on jib, but I think it's most useful as a foundational concept. That method has done an effective job of lifting the team off the ground, and establishing a 'culture', but if we're going to get to contender status, we'll probably have to compromise those ideals, somewhat. The only team that I can think of that has managed to get to the top while using almost exclusively right way guys are the Spurs, but they got lucky by drafting a right way superstar in the beginning, which is something that probably happens every 10 years. The Pacers have Ron Artest, the Pistons didn't get over the hump until they acquired Rasheed Wallace, (and Chauncey Billups had a shaky past when he was signed), the Kings didn't become playoff contenders until they got CWebb, etc. We may get lucky and not have to go there, but chances are, at somepoint, if we want to enter the upper echelon of teams, we'll have to pickup a talented player whose jib may be in question, and successfully indoctrinate him into our team culture. 

Personally, I think when the time comes, Pax would be willing to do that (I'd say going after Kobe Bryant would allude to that), but we'll see.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> I'll agree with the overall sentiment stating that although Tim Thomas is a douche, and has been a douche everywhere he's ever gone, it would be encouraging, at some point, to see the Bulls incorporate a guy like that into our team successfully.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm okay with our right-wayism and emphasis on jib, but I think it's most useful as a foundational concept. That method has done an effective job of lifting the team off the ground, and establishing a 'culture', but if we're going to get to contender status, we'll probably have to compromise those ideals, somewhat. The only team that I can think of that has managed to get to the top while using almost exclusively right way guys are the Spurs, but they got lucky by drafting a right way superstar in the beginning, which is something that probably happens every 10 years. The Pacers have Ron Artest, the Pistons didn't get over the hump until they acquired Rasheed Wallace, (and Chauncey Billups had a shaky past when he was signed), the Kings didn't become playoff contenders until they got CWebb, etc. We may get lucky and not have to go there, but chances are, at somepoint, if we want to enter the upper echelon of teams, we'll have to pickup a talented player whose jib may be in question, and successfully indoctrinate him into our team culture.
> 
> Personally, I think when the time comes, Pax would be willing to do that (I'd say going after Kobe Bryant would allude to that), but we'll see.



Fantastic post.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> I'll agree with the overall sentiment stating that although Tim Thomas is a douche, and has been a douche everywhere he's ever gone, it would be encouraging, at some point, to see the Bulls incorporate a guy like that into our team successfully.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm okay with our right-wayism and emphasis on jib, but I think it's most useful as a foundational concept. That method has done an effective job of lifting the team off the ground, and establishing a 'culture', but if we're going to get to contender status, we'll probably have to compromise those ideals, somewhat. The only team that I can think of that has managed to get to the top while using almost exclusively right way guys are the Spurs, but they got lucky by drafting a right way superstar in the beginning, which is something that probably happens every 10 years. The Pacers have Ron Artest, the Pistons didn't get over the hump until they acquired Rasheed Wallace, (and Chauncey Billups had a shaky past when he was signed), the Kings didn't become playoff contenders until they got CWebb, etc. We may get lucky and not have to go there, but chances are, at somepoint, if we want to enter the upper echelon of teams, we'll have to pickup a talented player whose jib may be in question, and successfully indoctrinate him into our team culture.
> 
> Personally, I think when the time comes, Pax would be willing to do that (I'd say going after Kobe Bryant would allude to that), but we'll see.


True. But the Bulls are so young, and have so little vocal veteran presence, that adding a Kobe (for example) to the present mix would seem to throw things completely out of whack to me. (That's just from what I imagine the team psychology is like, which is admittedly a W.A.G.) When we get that star of perhaps questionable jib, Management will want to have some jibby veterans on board to keep the ship on the straight and narrow, and they're not here now. That may account for the plaudits heaped upon Adrian Griffin and AD last year, out of proportion with their on-court contribution - I think Pax/Skiles tremendously valued the big brotherly aspect they brought, and they miss it now. This may be one reason that Pax was so apparently dissatisfied with the way the EC trade went down, once it became settled that Eddy was going to go - the Knicks forced the trade of the problem solver (AD) for the problem (TT).


----------



## knicksfan89 (Jan 6, 2005)

See As A Knick Fan I Am So Delighted We Beat You Guys This Evening
No Sweep, No Sweep, No Sweep, No Sweep This Year Guys


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

knicksfan89 said:


> See As A Knick Fan I Am So Delighted We Beat You Guys This Evening
> No Sweep, No Sweep, No Sweep, No Sweep This Year Guys


lol... no matter how bad it's been as a Bulls game, at least I never felt the need to gloat about not getting swept as if that's some sort of victory.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Some more Tim in the papers:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=127195



> Sweetney was then asked if he wished Thomas had stuck it out with the Bulls.
> 
> “Yeah, I wanted him around, because that’s one of my close friends,” Sweetney said. “But you’re not going to be with your friends all the time. You just have to keep working, stay in touch and wish them well.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The "just didn't work out" part makes me feel like he was on a pretty short leash in the first place. This isn't just good PR; I think Thomas genuinely was a nice guy and the players WERE ready to take him in. This is management making a decision that unless Tim Thomas comes into the team as Kirk Hinrich jib in 6'10" form, he'd be a bigger help to the team in a trade. They didn't want him to be motivated to play hard because he's in a contract year.

This was wisdom, from some angles, but I think such wisdom can cost a lot of potential and capitalizing on risk.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...llsbits,1,288895.story?coll=cs-home-headlines




> Parting shot
> 
> Tim Thomas, who no longer is joining the Bulls at practices or games, told his hometown newspaper, the Herald News of Passaic County, N.J., that he had a talk with Bulls coach Scott Skiles to address his time on the bench.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The more I read of this, the stupider it sounds. I'm a big fan of Skiles, but the more I read the more foolish this appears. Skiles seems to need to have someone to be pissed off at. Sometimes its justified, and sometimes its not and everyone else sort of just rolls their eyes and goes along with it because it doesn't seem that big of a deal and it doesn't end up costing much in the long run.

If you're a successful *******, you better keep being successful, because people forget success faster than they forget you're an *******.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> NEW YORK—Ben Gordon, a native of Mt. Vernon, N.Y., didn't hide his affection for Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night.
> 
> "I love it," Gordon said. "This is my favorite place to play in the league other than being at home at the United Center. This is my home away from home."
> 
> ...


The thing is, the Knicks don't really have anything that we'd really want, other than maybe Channing Frye, who I don't foresee Zeke trading to get BG.

But gosh. It really is scary to see a player on our squad so friendly with New York City. His captainship of the Nike BG team for NY, all of that... very scary.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...llsbits,1,288895.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


I don't know what Thomas is confused about. Skiles' comment sounds like the nice way of saying, "there are about 9 guys all playing better than you."


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I don't know what Thomas is confused about. Skiles' comment sounds like the nice way of saying, "there are about 9 guys all playing better than you."


 I think more like "practicing harder than you" Sounds like "Iverson practice", issue.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

An NBA official confirmed Bulls GM *John **Paxson* can not trade *Tim **Thomas* back to the Knicks this season under collective-bargaining-agreement rules. Nor can Davis be traded back to Chicago. The Bulls will try to deal Thomas, but if they can't by February's deadline, they'll likely waive him and he'll be a free agent. *Thomas said his first choice is to play for Indiana* and isn't sure he'd want a reunion with Brown, who has traded him twice. "If it was up to me, I pretty much don't know if I would want to come back and play for the Knicks," Thomas told New Jersey's Herald News.
http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/58709.htm


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> It’s no longer a question of if Tim Thomas will be traded, but when. The Bulls are openly shopping him, and the Knicks are reportedly interested, with Penny Hardaway’s name popping up in one rumor ...


Yeah , right...

http://dimemag.com/smack.asp 

and also In NY post TT wants to go to Indiana



> Thomas said his first choice is to play for Indiana and isn't sure he'd want a reunion with Brown, who has traded him twice. "If it was up to me, I pretty much don't know if I would want to come back and play for the Knicks," Thomas told New Jersey's Herald News


 http://www1.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/38149/20051201/thomas_not_returning_to_knicks_first_choice_is_indiana/ 



But I can't see what can be done there - seems like more TT interested in Pacers than the other way around.

TT for Croshere and Pollard maybe , but Croshere will eat into our cap next year , so unlikely .


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> "I asked him, 'Do you think I'm dogging it in practice?'" Thomas said. "He told me, 'No.' He told me I wasn't playing on the level the guys were playing on at that particular time. I thought that was another laughing matter. The last time I checked, we don't get our checks for our wins and losses in practice


:eek8:

This brings me back to the question I posed earlier about bringing in "star" . 

Can we convince anyone to come and sign with the Bulls with that talent level to put us over the top ? 

The Bulls so far have had all players who either are fighting for their lives to stay in the league or players still on their rookie deals who dont know the league yet.

What happens when its an established vet ? will all these crazy situatiosn still occur or will we have to fire Skiles after we get a star ?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Slightly OT but in Bill Simmons' most recent column he touches on the KG trade rumors and opines that if he were McHale he'd rather have Jermaine O'Neal, Austin Croshere and Danny Granger than Tyson Chandler, Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng and Tim Thomas. Anyone else think this is kind of nuts? I'd take the Bulls package. O'Neal is the best player mentioned, but Croshere is a proven mediocrity and Granger hasn't shown much yet. Perhaps I'm not as big a Jermaine O'Neal fan as some...


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Can we convince anyone to come and sign with the Bulls with that talent level to put us over the top ?


I'm pretty sure we could, we have the money and were a playoff team already.


> "I asked him, 'Do you think I'm dogging it in practice?'" Thomas said. "He told me, 'No.' He told me I wasn't playing on the level the guys were playing on at that particular time. I thought that was another laughing matter. The last time I checked, we don't get our checks for our wins and losses in practice


This was very amusing for me. I hope he breaks a leg... literally.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Well, there we go. Tim Thomas doesn't like to practice.

Honestly, this is one of the most insignificant debates in the history of insignificant debates. Skiles admonishing a glorified role player hardly registers as meaningful news for anyone with common sense and a knowledge of basketball.

Any minute Thomas played this season was one less minute for Deng, Noc, or Sweetney, all of whom are more useful players.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

madox said:


> This is the Bulls fault not Tim Thomas'.
> 
> Somehow Paxson and Skiles find a way to alienate a superstar talent and now they're gonna lose him for next to nothing. Say what?
> 
> ...


Thought I'd bump this since I literally crack up every time I read it.


----------

