# Is it time for Paxson to consider resignation?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rumblings around the United Center and THE SCORE seem to indicate that Paxson is considering resignation.

That he's so frustrated about his epic failure that he's thinking of calling it quits.

His son decided to ship out from his posh, suburban enclave and join the marines.

His jibby, "right way" philosophies have been exposed as laughable failures.

His team is in shambles. His "core 4" have been shown to not be anywhere near what it takes to be a NBA contender.

We're likely not going to get a high pick. Paxson has never shown the ability to pull off a consolidation trade. 

In fact, he's shown that he's pretty much inept.

Is it time for this clown to finally step down or does he get another few years?

He’s shown me nothing over these 5 years to make me think he has what it takes to build a real NBA contender.

Come on Paxson. Uncle Jerry will keep writing you checks until the arena stops filling up, but please, for the good of the team and its fans, consider calling it quits.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

No. He should have the chance to straighten this unexpected mess out and get the team back to where it was. If he fails, then he should resign.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> He should have the chance to straighten this unexpected mess out and get the team back to where it was.


Do you think he has a vision/plan to get the team to become a real NBA contender?

What do you think his vision/plan is? What makes you think that?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Rumblings around the United Center and THE SCORE seem to indicate that Paxson is considering resignation.


"THE SCORE"??? does anybody still listen to them? they're the equivalent of bbb.net on radio.(no offense, mods)

only an idiot, blind person or a child would listen or give *any *credibility to the score....:lol::lol:

i've yet to figure out We'll have none of that, thank you very much.....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think he has a vision/plan to get the team to become a real NBA contender?


Yes. He's in one of the most ego driven industries on the planet. Of course he thinks he knows what a winner looks like.



> What do you think his vision/plan is?


Great point. He hasn't done a great job of publicizing it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> "THE SCORE"??? does anybody still listen to them? they're the equivalent of bbb.net on radio.(no offense, mods)
> 
> only an idiot, blind person or a child would listen or give *any *credibility to the score....:lol::lol:
> 
> i've yet to figure out


Please stop these posts. MODS?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> "THE SCORE"??? does anybody still listen to them? they're the equivalent of bbb.net on radio



That is breathtakingly funny.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

EDIT

Spewing their venom and playing the ATS game.

Its funny to see the same old pro-paxson names posting their bile. So foolish. So very, very wrong.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> EDIT
> 
> Spewing their venom and playing the ATS game.
> 
> Its funny to see the same old pro-paxson names posting their bile. So foolish. So very, very wrong.


Kid, you spent the entire original post begging for a fight, don't act surprised that you got it.

The ridiculous hyperbole was border-line funny.... do I think his "philosophy" (a dogma assigned to him by zealots posting on BBF.net) is a "laughable" failure? No.

Do I think we had a bad year? Yes.

Should Paxson resign after one bad year? no. 

I do not want to hear the "he has a losing record overall", 1. because you've already told me that doesn't mean anything to you (as long as you're mediocre) and because a ton of those losses came in his first year as GM, with mostly Jerry Krause leftovers.

So... he probably should have drafted Lamarcus Aldridge and kept him, and we never should have gotten rid of Tyson Chandler. Not something to resign over when you've also had some success... at least not in my opnion.

Also... if Paxson resigned, who would we replace him with? Kukoc4ever?


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

By any objective standard Paxson has been a failure. My four favorite Paxson screw-ups:

1. In his first major move he signed a broken-down Scottie Pippen to a 2 year guaranteed contract. Of course, Pippen played maybe 10 games tops;

2. Trading a young, talented player (Chandler) for an old guy (Brown) and another young, talented player (Smith) and then trading the young, talented player for second round draft picks (Gray and Jameson). Now, Chandler is helping his team to a possible Western Conference title and Smith is fast becoming when of the best young players in the league (if you have been paying attention to Nugs games). Brown is playing for the Celts and all we have to show for it is a lumbering back-up center. Pax got screwed on both ends of the deal. Quite an accomplishment!

3. Of course, completely whiffing on the draft that brought us Tyrus and the immortal Viktor Khryapa. Aldridge, who we traded away, is one of the best young big men in the league. Tyrus, IMO is a bit bigger version of Ronald Dupree. He will have a career kicking around several teams in the league who believe he still has promise. 

4. Trading for Tim Thomas and then not using him or trading him when he had a $10 million expiring contract.

Please understand, however, that even if clueless Pax resigns Reinsdork will just replace him with another inexperienced loyal loser like Bill Wennington or Stacey King. The one thing JR won't do is what they did in New York, i.e. bring in an adult who knows something about running a team and has an IQ over 90.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Sure, he should think about it. Anybody with a conscience after seeing a disappointing season like this should think about it. However, most people would keep on truckin', I assume, and seek vindication. It's JR's call on whether to extend that opportunity.

By the way, the aggressive rhetoric and tone in this thread is completely unnecessary. Though the original post is full of smug sentiment and erroneous assertions, the question itself is perfectly valid.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> By any objective standard Paxson has been a failure.


Such as 3 straight playoff appearances? Big failure...



> My four favorite Paxson screw-ups:
> 
> 1. In his first major move he signed a broken-down Scottie Pippen to a 2 year guaranteed contract. Of course, Pippen played maybe 10 games tops;


I wasn't enthused about bringing Pippen back, but it's not doing so hurt the team in any meaningful way.



> 2. Trading a young, talented player (Chandler) for an old guy (Brown) and another young, talented player (Smith) and then trading the young, talented player for second round draft picks (Gray and Jameson). Now, Chandler is helping his team to a possible Western Conference title and Smith is fast becoming when of the best young players in the league (if you have been paying attention to Nugs games). Brown is playing for the Celts and all we have to show for it is a lumbering back-up center. Pax got screwed on both ends of the deal. Quite an accomplishment!


Are you talking about the same JR Smith who the Nuggets were trying to unload this season? They must be as excited as you are with his development!

Luckily for Smith, he's been scoring a bunch since the trade deadline. He might even earn a job for another year. But if you dislike Ben Gordon (I don't know if *you *do), you can't turn around and wish for Smith. We already have an inconsistent guard who doesn't play D. And, really, who cares if he's 3 inches taller, if it doesn't tranlate into better play on the court? Smith is a taller, more boneheaded version of Gordon...personally, I'd rather have Gordon.



> 3. Of course, completely whiffing on the draft that brought us Tyrus and the immortal Viktor Khryapa. Aldridge, who we traded away, is one of the best young big men in the league. Tyrus, IMO is a bit bigger version of Ronald Dupree. He will have a career kicking around several teams in the league who believe he still has promise.


I also wanted Aldridge, but he's a jump shooting big man and we already had enough jump shooters. I also understand that Aldridge was more NBA-ready than Thomas, so I'm willing to be patient. I don't understand fans who are impatient with this guy, and then complain that the Bulls trade away their talent too quickly. It really just paints such fans as Negative Nancies.



> 4. Trading for Tim Thomas and then not using him or trading him when he had a $10 million expiring contract.


Tim Thomas never fit in with the team. He sprained both ankles, which obviously is out of his control, but he's always been criticized for having a poor work ethic. I don't blame the team for cutting ties with him. He caught on with Phoenix (a team that suited his shoot-first, avoid defense mentality), and then fizzled in LA.



> Please understand, however, that even if clueless Pax resigns Reinsdork will just replace him with another inexperienced loyal loser like Bill Wennington or Stacey King. The one thing JR won't do is what they did in New York, i.e. bring in an adult who knows something about running a team and has an IQ over 90.


John Paxson is actually a well-educated man. I sincerely doubt he has a IQ below 90. Do you realize how low that is? 70-79 is borderline mental retardation. I mean, I get that you're trying to "dis" the guy, but it's just a tired cliche. "Tee hee, [guy I don't like] is retarded." 

I guess, of all people, I'm the one whose intelligence should be questioned, as I got suckered into another one of these repetitive, ridiculous discussions.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, he should think about it. Anybody with a conscience after seeing a disappointing season like this should think about it. However, most people would keep on truckin', I assume, and seek vindication. It's JR's call on whether to extend that opportunity.
> 
> By the way, the aggressive rhetoric and tone in this thread is completely unnecessary. Though the original post is full of smug sentiment and erroneous assertions, the question itself is perfectly valid.


The question is valid, but it's been discussed ad nauseum, and people are tired of it. We pretty much have to read a "Paxson is worthless and should resign" post in every thread, regardless of topic. That makes people exhausted and, when it's combined with smug delivery, snippy.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> 1. In his first major move he signed a broken-down Scottie Pippen to a 2 year guaranteed contract. Of course, Pippen played maybe 10 games tops


help us understand how that move hamstrung the bulls......less or more say, than the trade for rose, or the FA signing of Erob, or the desperation trade of elton brand?.....:yay:



> 2. Trading a young, talented player (Chandler) for an old guy (Brown) and another young, talented player (Smith) and then trading the young, talented player for second round draft picks (Gray and Jameson). Now, Chandler is helping his team to a possible Western Conference title and Smith is fast becoming when of the best young players in the league (if you have been paying attention to Nugs games). Brown is playing for the Celts and all we have to show for it is a lumbering back-up center. Pax got screwed on both ends of the deal. Quite an accomplishment!


yes, chandler's career 7 pts and 7 rebounds in 5 years were the stuff of legend.....let's discount the fact that in 5 years he couldn't shoot, set a pick, stay out of foul trouble, or catch a pass; he *was *young though, i'll give you that. maybe the bulls should've tanked hard enough to get chris paul, so chandler had a playmate to make him look like he at least belonged in the nba.

smith? yes, he's talented (depending on your definition), but the nuggets are likely to miss the playoffs and like your assessment of thomas *after 2 years*, i'd wager that after what, *4-5 years *for smith that he'll never be much more than a glorified chucker with a shot selection that starts in the locker room and who's a legend in his own mind. he'll be fun to watch in the playoffs, huh? IF the nuggets can crawlin as the 8th seed. *big* help, that smith, he's got promise though. promise that he'll shoot first, second, third and always. yea, the bulls really missed on him.



> 3. Of course, completely whiffing on the draft that brought us Tyrus and the immortal Viktor Khryapa. Aldridge, who we traded away, is one of the best young big men in the league. Tyrus, IMO is a bit bigger version of Ronald Dupree. He will have a career kicking around several teams in the league who believe he still has promise.


yes, i could see all the minutes aldridge would've gotten over pj brown and ben wallace cause he's one of the best young bigs in the league, just like you could, right?



> 4. Trading for Tim Thomas and then not using him or trading him when he had a $10 million expiring contract.


bringing up tim thomas as a comparison for anything, is just ridiculous imo; thomas hasn't done anything other than be overpaid and use up roster space for whatever team he's pimping currently. btw, who's he with? the clips? how'd they do?



> Please understand, however, that even if clueless Pax resigns Reinsdork will just replace him with another inexperienced loyal loser like Bill Wennington or Stacey King. The one thing JR won't do is what they did in New York, i.e. bring in an adult who knows something about running a team and has an IQ over 90.


i'm certain you and the OP will consider me to not be "objective", but we'd disagree on that definition as well. also, "reinsdork", as you so lovingly and wittily call him, is the mananging owner of two successful and championship caliber professional sports franchises. while i'm not a fan of any owner, his ability to manage these organizations and win championships with them carries a lot more weight than some spoiled fan whose sense of entitlement feels this affords him the right to call the owner "cheap" and/or clueless because his teams haven't made you "happy" in your given time frame.....boo frickin' hoo....

of course, we can always look to the SCORE (damn, that's still *too*funny!) to get our facts on what the bulls and john paxson plan to do.:yay:


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I hope he sticks around for one more year.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Case said:


> Such as 3 straight playoff appearances? Big failure...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In rebuttal:

1. The signing of Pippen did hurt the team. We did not have that money to go after younger, healthier players like James Posey.

2. JR Smith IMO is a tremendous talent. The last couple of games he has just torched the opposition in the West. Plays very good defense too if you actually saw him play. Can shoot as well as Gordon but is much bigger and plays better defense. Also has a better handle. Perhaps you caught a glimpse of his play when he lit-up the Bulls a couple of months ago?

3. Your right, who needs Aldridge. He is just going to be a 20/10 guy for the next ten years and help lead Portland, along with Roy and Oden, to the top of the West in the next few years. Thomas will still be an undersized power forward with an erratic jump shot and a poor attitude.

4. If Tim Thomas didn't fit in with the team the Bulls should have moved him and received some compensation in return. Paxson's failure to do this just showed his mean-spirited, stupid attitude towards some players. Remember what he did to Corie Blount?

5. George W. Bush is also a well educated man. He went to Yale and Harvard. Does that make him an intelligent executive? (Aside from being a blunderer and mass-murderer.)

6. Yes, I agree. You should question your own intelligence. Being a knee-jerk supporter of John Paxson is no way to go through life.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> 2. JR Smith IMO is a tremendous talent. The last couple of games he has just torched the opposition in the West. Plays very good defense too if you actually saw him play. Can shoot as well as Gordon but is much bigger and plays better defense. Also has a better handle. Perhaps you caught a glimpse of his play when he lit-up the Bulls a couple of months ago?


I'd be a bit more upset if he did it every night. He's streaky like Tyrus is...and I'm content to have only one of those types on my team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Case said:


> The question is valid, but it's been discussed ad nauseum, and people are tired of it. We pretty much have to read a "Paxson is worthless and should resign" post in every thread, regardless of topic. That makes people exhausted and, when it's combined with smug delivery, snippy.


I agree the tone of the delivery leaves much to be desired. However, whether Paxson should resign (i.e. truly decide on his own that he should leave) seems to be different than previous topics (whether he is good, if JR should fire him, etc.).


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> In rebuttal:
> 
> 1. The signing of Pippen did hurt the team. We did not have that money to go after younger, healthier players like James Posey.
> 
> ...


This post is all kinds of hilarious. Mainly because of that last sentence. If he's a knee-jerk supporter of John Paxson then what are you? A knee-jerk hater of John Paxson? Or does that description only fit towards the people who have opinions you don't particularly share. 

Honestly, I'm about fed up with this board minus a few posters. It seems that this board has fallen prey to the burgeoning "If you aren't with me, you're against me" mentality that is plaguing this country from politics to general discourse.

Paxson has made his mistakes. He also helped turn around a franchise that was laughable after Jordan into a franchise that is at the very least respectable. The guy put together a team that won 49 games last year and with a couple of good shooting games, probably goes to the ECF and maybe the NBA Finals. This year, he keeps the same team, and they suck. He also gave away Tyson Chandler and drafted Tyrus Thomas instead of Brandon Roy or LaMarcus Aldridge. 

This hyperbole has to stop. He's been an above average GM who put together a roster of over-achievers and who never had the benefit of being able to acquire a LeBron, Kobe, Duncan, Dirk, Nash, etc. He's made his mistakes as well.

If you don't agree with me, you are wrong. And I hate you.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

T.Shock said:


> This post is all kinds of hilarious. Mainly because of that last sentence. If he's a knee-jerk supporter of John Paxson then what are you? A knee-jerk hater of John Paxson? Or does that description only fit towards the people who have opinions you don't particularly share.
> 
> Honestly, I'm about fed up with this board minus a few posters. It seems that this board has fallen prey to the burgeoning "If you aren't with me, you're against me" mentality that is plaguing this country from politics to general discourse.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with this post.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> This post is all kinds of hilarious. Mainly because of that last sentence. If he's a knee-jerk supporter of John Paxson then what are you? A knee-jerk hater of John Paxson? Or does that description only fit towards the people who have opinions you don't particularly share.
> 
> Honestly, I'm about fed up with this board minus a few posters. It seems that this board has fallen prey to the burgeoning "If you aren't with me, you're against me" mentality that is plaguing this country from politics to general discourse.
> 
> ...



How can you call Paxson "an above average GM?" This team did not even make it to the playoffs in the woeful East. How many lottery picks has Paxson had? Gordon was the third pick in the draft and he doesn't even start. Thomas was essentially the second pick in the draft and only starts when the guy in front of him goes down with an injury. Hinrich was the seventh pick in the draft and has turned into a mediocre Capt. Klank. Guys drafted this high should not only start but be stars.

I give Paxson credit when he does something right. For example, getting rid of Wallace, drafting Noah, etc. Paxson has deserved criticism because he has earned it. Not because of any knee-jerk reaction. The listing given in a previous post was for purposes of documenting his many failures. I didn't even mention Paxson's totally BS handling of "Curry-gate" which in my mind was a low point even for him.

There are only about three posters on this board who have the chutzpah to tell it like it is. And when they do the others whine and complain about how this board is going to hell. If people want to blindly praise Paxson for being such a terrific GM they should expect that others have the right to rebut their arguments and positions.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> How can you call Paxson "an above average GM?" This team did not even make it to the playoffs in the woeful East. How many lottery picks has Paxson had? Gordon was the third pick in the draft and he doesn't even start. Thomas was essentially the second pick in the draft and only starts when the guy in front of him goes down with an injury. Hinrich was the seventh pick in the draft and has turned into a mediocre Capt. Klank. Guys drafted this high should not only start but be stars.
> 
> I give Paxson credit when he does something right. For example, getting rid of Wallace, drafting Noah, etc. Paxson has deserved criticism because he has earned it. Not because of any knee-jerk reaction. The listing given in a previous post was for purposes of documenting his many failures. I didn't even mention Paxson's totally BS handling of "Curry-gate" which in my mind was a low point even for him.
> 
> There are only about three posters on this board who have the chutzpah to tell it like it is. And when they do the others whine and complain about how this board is going to hell. If people want to blindly praise Paxson for being such a terrific GM they should expect that others have the right to rebut their arguments and positions.


Yeah Paxson he's a GM that sucks, we're the only team that hasn't made it to the playoffs. Too bad we can't get that Isiah guy.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I spend all day in meetings and this is what I missed? 

This team, despite this year, isn't in that bad of a shape. Would you like to be Milwaukee who has Dan Gadzurik on a long term deal and overpaid Mo Williams? Gave Mike Redd a max contract when Redd isn't even close to being a Max player? They may end up over the cap trying to resign Bogut if they don't get rid of one of these deals, and Bogut is better for this team than Mo or Mike.

Would you rather be Charlotte with an owner and GM who aren't around? Check this out http://charlotteblogcat.blogspot.com/2008/04/bobcats-thoughts-44.html and decide.

Or would you rather be New York? Donnie Walsh is going to have issues. 

Danny Ferry seems to be making Cleveland worse, and he had a star handed to him on a platter. 

Every GM should look at what he's done, and could do, and decide what he could do better, or if he can do better.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

It doesnt matter whether you put Paxson's philosophy under fire or not. San Antonio has the same philosophy; they just happen to have drafted a star, too.

Get hard working guys who are good people-- not a bad philosophy. It works fine if you get Tim Duncan.



Let me offer this: a GM's overall philosophy is *not the causal factor* behind a team's success. It's whether or not they can land a star player. All the rest is gravy. As in, it's only gravy and not much more if you dont have that star.


Now, when you get low character guys, that gravy can sink you. But if you get high character guys, it's simply a way of avoiding further messes. Detroit, high character guys off the court. Miami, for the most part, had guys in their title run that are fine off the court. White Chocolate has left behind his miscreant days. 

Nothing stopped their GMs from attaining the league's highest prize while having (GASP!) quality people on the team. Paying quality people $10M a year, instead of giving it to lowlifes.... such a horrible plan, horrible horrible.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DengNabbit said:


> It doesnt matter whether you put Paxson's philosophy under fire or not. San Antonio has the same philosophy; they just happen to have drafted a star, too.
> 
> Get hard working guys who are good people-- not a bad philosophy. It works fine if you get Tim Duncan.
> 
> ...


mmm white chocolate...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> This hyperbole has to stop.


Your suggestions?

The board will talk it about the things that interest it and will ignore the rest. Post something else interesting to them to talk about and they will talk about it.

Unfortunately, the only real topics that seem to get people lathered up enough to go two or three pages are Paxson, Curry, Tyrus/Aldridge and sometimes Skiles. Those are your posters. Maybe some more diversity is needed or something.

Sorry to threadjack, but I _was_ responding to a post. Now back to *XX* to talk Deng, Carmelo, and the playoffs...


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> How can you call Paxson "an above average GM?" This team did not even make it to the playoffs in the woeful East. How many lottery picks has Paxson had? Gordon was the third pick in the draft and he doesn't even start. Thomas was essentially the second pick in the draft and only starts when the guy in front of him goes down with an injury. Hinrich was the seventh pick in the draft and has turned into a mediocre Capt. Klank. Guys drafted this high should not only start but be stars.
> 
> I give Paxson credit when he does something right. For example, getting rid of Wallace, drafting Noah, etc. Paxson has deserved criticism because he has earned it. Not because of any knee-jerk reaction. The listing given in a previous post was for purposes of documenting his many failures. I didn't even mention Paxson's totally BS handling of "Curry-gate" which in my mind was a low point even for him.
> 
> There are only about three posters on this board who have the chutzpah to tell it like it is. And when they do the others whine and complain about how this board is going to hell. If people want to blindly praise Paxson for being such a terrific GM they should expect that others have the right to rebut their arguments and positions.


Ugh. Do you even read your post? You believe you have "chutzpah" for telling it like it is and arguing your point against those who are pro-Paxson, but also insult those who argue their pro-Paxson points for being blind. So everything you say is true and ballsy and you have the inalienable right to argue your anti-Paxson stance, but the pro-Paxson fools aren't entitled to the same rights.

This is the worst kind of argument. Ignorant and ironic.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Basically deleting this post.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Ugh. Do you even read your post? You believe you have "chutzpah" for telling it like it is and arguing your point against those who are pro-Paxson, but also insult those who argue their pro-Paxson points for being blind. So everything you say is true and ballsy and you have the inalienable right to argue your anti-Paxson stance, but the pro-Paxson fools aren't entitled to the same rights.
> 
> This is the worst kind of argument. Ignorant and ironic.



Indeed. It's so easy and unfair to characterize those with whom you agree as "telling it like it is" and those who don't as "knee-jerk" or "mindless." Sure, everyone seems smart when they agree with you. It's a false dichotomy, but what the hell?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

narek said:


> I spend all day in meetings and this is what I missed?
> 
> This team, despite this year, isn't in that bad of a shape. Would you like to be Milwaukee who has Dan Gadzurik on a long term deal and overpaid Mo Williams? Gave Mike Redd a max contract when Redd isn't even close to being a Max player? They may end up over the cap trying to resign Bogut if they don't get rid of one of these deals, and Bogut is better for this team than Mo or Mike.
> 
> ...


My name is GB, and I wholeheartedly approve of this message.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

No.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I guess controversy has always sold better than logical debate.



Re-read the post. It was edited.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

GB said:


> My name is GB, and I wholeheartedly approve of this message.


Same here.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

Pax has this off season to actually do something significant for the team. He did the organization a favor by ridding it of Krause's mistakes and draft semi-talented players & go to mediocre. All of it was to eventually get us a difference making player which he has yet to do. 

He had several seasons after the Curry drama ended to get us a true go-to low post presence only to have lost out on just about every single opportunity that was out there. He's done a good job at giving away talent for nothing & cap relief but he hasn't done a drastic move to help this team yet and he's been here for a while.

Pax has a chance to do something right this summer to either get two players that would greatly help us out in Brand & Arenas. Both might be long shots to get but if they're available he should try his best to get them even if he has to work 24/7 until a deal gets done. He doesn't have to gut this team but should include players he wouldn't have dealt in the other deals he lost. 

If pax doesn't land those two or fix this mess he created than he should quit and have JR call BJ for the job.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

That link narek posted: 



> THE CHARLOTTE BLOGCAT
> 
> The best--and, to my knowledge, ONLY--site for in-depth knowledge and analysis of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats!


Hmm...what is there to analyze? LOL


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

A lot of people just need to learn to calm down with regards to some posters. That, or use the ignore function.

k4e had a valid question. Personally, I don't think Paxson should resign. If this year proves to be an anomaly and not the norm, why should he be gone? No reasonable individual could think that making improvements (albeit marginal) to the team would lead to a drop in about 15 wins.

A lot of people like to argue that the drop in wins should have been expected on account of improvement by other teams in the East, yet they also conveniently talk about how woeful the East is and that anyone should make the playoffs. Can't have it both ways.

Paxson should certainly have next year to show that 49 wins and not ~33 wins is truer to this team's potential. Making something of Gooden's contract and addressing the roster imbalance should obviously also be a huge factor in whether Pax keeps his job.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

I would rather have pax bring in a legit coach that lead a team deep in the playoffs or has won a ring as a player or coach.Before i get read of him.But i'm the only person on this board bashing this guy from the jump.Now i never expect the season to be this bad.Still I've said it from the begin on here and espn board or anywhere i never like the ben wallace signing and felt that TC needed the surrounding cast and confidence that he wasn't getting here.

I never like the Tim Thomas thing either,just letting him walk for nothing was stupid.I would have kept him on the team and played him here and there and then traded him and got something out of his deal.

The same with P.J Brown he's not in our plans so why not have traded him and gotten something back for him.Regardless if its a future pick or anther young role player.Get something for the man.


He's just done a lot of questionable things in my eyes,that didn't fool me as a fan.I'm glad you guys are finally coming around on this guy.Although i'll will paxs some cred he def has a good scouting eye for talent.Trades and moves like that he's one of the worst as well as building a program for players to develop.He's been horrible at that,some might say that's the coaching,but hay the GM hired the coach so he's responsible too.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Rumblings around the United Center and THE SCORE seem to indicate that Paxson is considering resignation.
> 
> That he's so frustrated about his *epic failure* that he's thinking of calling it quits.
> 
> ...


I just wanted to get a few points of clarification from k4e

1. What constitutes an epic failure? And what does that make the NBA teams that didn't make the playoffs 3 out of the last 4 years?

2. What does John Paxson's son joining the marines have to do with anything? 

3. Who do you advocate for the GM position? Its easy to be negative (See: Jay Mariotti)... because most of the time, people do fail to accomplish goals like winning championships... how about something constructive?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

EDIT

No, he should NOT resign. As I've said it a million times before, he has done pretty well, drafting good talent (arguably BPA) in every draft. It's not his fault we've never been in a position to get the all-important star player. Looking back at it now, Deng and Gordon weren't wise picks, but they were at the time. Gordon was a completely different player at Uconn, and Deng was the safest pick at SF. Now, using the all-mighty Hindsight, we can see that Josh Smith and Al Jefferson, 2 high school kids, would've been much better picks, but those 2 went in the teens for a reason. The only other debateable pick, is Tyrus. I personally still like the pick. I'd still rather have Rudy Gay, but I'll still take Tyrus over Aldridge. I firmly believe that if we had a decent coach and Tyrus got the PT, he'd be the better player, and lets not forget that Tyrus is a lot younger, even than this year's rookie Noah. 

Now, I'm not a Pax sympathizer either. I absolutely despise the Benedict signing and the following Chandler trade. Those are 2 of the biggest blunders ever, and I felt that way at the time too. I wasn't totally opposed to getting Benedict prior to finding out Chandler leaving was essentially a condition of the signing, but was never thrilled with it because he's so horrible offensively and I just really disliked him from his Piston days. Now I hate his guts, right up there with Kobe. 

Looking forward, I would say that the team is actually in a pretty good position, if the cards are played right. We have a good sized expiring in Gooden. 2 good young post players in Tyrus and Noah. Deng, Thabs and Kirk all have their redeeming points, and even Ben does. Noc should be a decent trade commodity too. We have a lot of talent, and even an expiring deal to use to make trades work, plus Gooden isn't too shabby. Assuming we get the right trade opportunities (Pax has tried, but the other teams just weren't ready to deal yet...a year too early on our part both times), we have the firepower to pull some off. Plus, if we actually get lucky for once in the lotto, we could get a star player that might put the team over the hump. Imagine Tyrus with Rose. Same thing as Tyson and Paul. Tyrus would explode, just like Tyson did once he got a run n gun PG. We could then have Kirk be a backup combo guard, and have Thabs at SG, along with Deng, Tyrus and Noah. It'd be another Phoenix, but with D and more size. It's really as simple as that, just adding one playmaker and the rest of the team would go IMO. Beasley could be the go to scorer, and then we could trade Deng or w/e to get another key piece. All it would take is just a little luck in getting a legit star, and the rest of the guys would be just fine. Pax did get just about the most talent possible, but there's just no star to be had, no matter who the GM was (unless he wanted to absolutely gut the team to get a star, and then we'd be no better than the team the star left....a star with no team, and when the star is old like KG, that's worthless).


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> EDIT
> 
> No, he should NOT resign. As I've said it a million times before, he has done pretty well, drafting good talent (arguably BPA) in every draft. It's not his fault we've never been in a position to get the all-important star player. Looking back at it now, Deng and Gordon weren't wise picks, but they were at the time. Gordon was a completely different player at Uconn, and Deng was the safest pick at SF. Now, using the all-mighty Hindsight, we can see that Josh Smith and Al Jefferson, 2 high school kids, would've been much better picks, but those 2 went in the teens for a reason. The only other debateable pick, is Tyrus. I personally still like the pick. I'd still rather have Rudy Gay, but I'll still take Tyrus over Aldridge. I firmly believe that if we had a decent coach and Tyrus got the PT, he'd be the better player, and lets not forget that Tyrus is a lot younger, even than this year's rookie Noah.
> 
> ...



Your right DBB,and i hope you wasn't referring to me with the tired post comment.I said a lot of the same things your saying and its clear you and I agree on a lot of things.Not so sure about the josh smith Al Jeff thing though.I'd still keep deng and ben out of that draft for our team's.Only because we need offense and deng is to me more of a winner then anyone else in the draft after gordan.What has AI won or Josh smith or Al Jefferson in the nba.I don't think any of them got thier teams into the 2nd round and i doubt they would have here in chi town.Due to our lack of developing players.To me that why players like TC(when he was here)Tyrus and even deng and gordan fail to develop and show promise.Because we are terrible at developing players for some reason.We've alway drafted good talent,but fail terribly at developing them.To me the person responsible for that should feel some heat.If that's pax then so be it.Now i'm not saying that person should be fired but he should be on the hot seat at the end of the day.The production we are getting out of our lottery picks is terrible.To make a long story short I see your seeing the light,it about time someone else agrees with me.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

No the tired post comment wasn't at you ballerkingn, EDIT

As for Al and Josh, I'd take them both over Deng and Gordon. Heck I'd take ONE of them alone over both Deng and Gordon. The 2 were put in horrible positions right off the bat, on horrible teams with no supporting cast, and were right out of high school. So they're not only better than both Deng and Gordon, but they're younger and have WAY higher ceilings. (I've always been a big Josh Smith fan though...the guy is just a beast. Haven't seen Al play all that much, but he definitely produces)


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Ugh. Do you even read your post? You believe you have "chutzpah" for telling it like it is and arguing your point against those who are pro-Paxson, but also insult those who argue their pro-Paxson points for being blind. So everything you say is true and ballsy and you have the inalienable right to argue your anti-Paxson stance, but the pro-Paxson fools aren't entitled to the same rights.
> 
> This is the worst kind of argument. Ignorant and ironic.


Talk about ironic. You accuse me of not even reading my own post. Do you actually believe that? And then you accuse me of insulting other posters but then call my argument "ignorant." 

My use of the term "blind" refers to those posters who do not even make a case for supporting Paxson. They just say he had bad luck. For example, one poster made the argument that Pax was not fortunate enough to have been able to draft franchise players like Kobe, Dirk or Nash. Well, guess what? Those guys did not fall into the laps of the teams they wound up with. Jerry West and Don Nelson made draft day deals that got Kobe and Dirk, respectively, from other teams. Nelson also traded for Nash, if memory serves me correctly. 

However, Pax has not made that sort of draft day deal to bring in a franchise player. He liked Wade a lot but didn't have the foresight or the courage to trade-up two spots for a franchise player. Conversely, he did trade down a couple of years back to send what could be a franchise player to Portland (Aldridge) for an erratic, disappointing player
with a bad attitude (Thomas). That is one reason I criticize Paxson. It is based on fact. Is that being "ignorant?"

When Pax got Ben Wallace as a FA I was perhaps the only poster who was against that acquisition from the beginning. I wrote a lengthy post about why this acquisition was very much like the Nate Thurmond deal many years ago where an aging center was brought in to bring the team a championship. There must have been at least a dozen posts that lambasted me for being "ignorant" and "negative." Not one poster agreed with me in that particular thread. This demonstrated to me how many posters resort to bullying anyone who differs from their view. Heaven forbid should anyone be "negative" about their team.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> Talk about ironic. You accuse me of not even reading my own post. Do you actually believe that? And then you accuse me of insulting other posters but then call my argument "ignorant."
> 
> My use of the term "blind" refers to those posters who do not even make a case for supporting Paxson. They just say he had bad luck. For example, one poster made the argument that Pax was not fortunate enough to have been able to draft franchise players like Kobe, Dirk or Nash. Well, guess what? Those guys did not fall into the laps of the teams they wound up with. Jerry West and Don Nelson made draft day deals that got Kobe and Dirk, respectively, from other teams. Nelson also traded for Nash, if memory serves me correctly.
> 
> ...


talk about revisionist history buddy... you know that these threads are still around right?

http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/284803-history-lesson-nate-thurmond.html#post3749127

Let me know where you get "lambasted"...

and how at least a dozen posts called you ignorant, when it was a 10 post thread....

and how not one poster agreed with you - did you not read the first response, when the guy (dababybullz, actually) said "I agree"?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

everyone is punchy. Very disappointing season is almost over. Everyone take a week's vacation, come back refreshed and dedicated.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Rumblings around the United Center and THE SCORE seem to indicate that Paxson is considering resignation.
> 
> That he's so frustrated about his epic failure that he's thinking of calling it quits.
> 
> ...


Did I miss something? He missed the playoffs one year out of the last four and he is considering resigning when the going gets hard? Or is this just wishful thinking? 

The team has problems but its with the players. It is still the same core that made the playoffs 3 out of the last 4 years. We are still the youngest team in the league! So a GM doesn't quit on that. 

I assume Pat Riley is saying the same thing about himself? Team missed the playoffs...time to quit? I dont see Pat doing that and I dont see John doing it either.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> This post is all kinds of hilarious. Mainly because of that last sentence. If he's a knee-jerk supporter of John Paxson then what are you? A knee-jerk hater of John Paxson? Or does that description only fit towards the people who have opinions you don't particularly share.
> 
> Honestly, I'm about fed up with this board minus a few posters. *It seems that this board has fallen prey to the burgeoning "If you aren't with me, you're against me" mentality that is plaguing this country from politics to general discourse.*
> 
> ...


I agree with your post completely!

Listen we all are Bulls fans. Paxson haters and lovers. Going back and forth with each other over who is right, won't solve the Bulls ills. 

That being said, it is a messageboard and discussion is the lifeblood of any forum. As long as we dont talk about the same things over and over, (which seems to be the case sometimes) and as long as we are respectful to each other (which is not the case the case in this thread) then we wont discourage it. 

in summary, talk! Just don't talk ill of each other.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> Did I miss something? He missed the playoffs one year out of the last four and he is considering resigning when the going gets hard? Or is this just wishful thinking?
> 
> The team has problems but its with the players. It is still the same core that made the playoffs 3 out of the last 4 years. We are still the youngest team in the league! So a GM doesn't quit on that.
> 
> I assume Pat Riley is saying the same thing about himself? Team missed the playoffs...time to quit? I dont see Pat doing that and I dont see John doing it either.


The Score thing was complete speculation from Boers and Bernstein. A friend of mine who heard it said B and B speculated that Pax looked so miserable this year he might be thinking of quitting. They have no inside knowledge.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Dornado said:


> talk about revisionist history buddy... you know that these threads are still around right?
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/284803-history-lesson-nate-thurmond.html#post3749127
> 
> ...



The first poster responding AGREED that he was not for paying Ben big bucks "ON THE CHANCE" that his abilities declined. He went on to say that Ben is very athletic "and that's what makes him great." Obviously, if I thought that Ben was great I would have supported the acquisition and not have posted that I thought the Bulls were on the verge of making a major mistake.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The Score thing was complete speculation from Boers and Bernstein. A friend of mine who heard it said B and B speculated that Pax looked so miserable this year he might be thinking of quitting. They have no inside knowledge.



well, duh!!!

i *knew* it was those two chuckleheads without even hearing the "rumbling"; they have no listeners mainly because their entire schtick involves making fun of and denigrating the lives and/or careers of pro athletes. it's tired, old and a genuine reason why the score is fading out of the public's consciousness. and since when does "speculation" equate to "rumblings"?

BS is BS anyway you slice it, and i never felt like it was valid question from the word go. one's right to express it is fine, but it comes with the requisite backlash, which is as rightfully entitled.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its funny how the once-devout supporters of a career loser who has accomplished nothing of note could call anyone "ignorant."

The Paxson lovers EDIT on and on, as EDIT and wrong-headed as ever. 

Bad luck. Bad drafts. Bad owner. Can’t make the players play hard. Bad coach.

LOL, perhaps, but one thing is certain.

Bad GM.

He ran the drafts. He picked ALL THE PLAYERS. He hired the coaches. He drafted many of the players with work ethic as a primary factor in his decision making process.

(people can post whatever they want for the most part in my book, as long as its bulls discussion related and not personal. But dumb, wrong-headed ideas that have been proven to be dumb and wrong-headed should be called out. notice how there is no real defense of paxson anymore, just attacks on me and the media. its because paxson is a proven loser and even the EDIT can't mount a defense for the dolt, so its attack good 'ol k4e)

Cool off the personal attacks please.

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

For those that think he deserves more time, what do you think he is planning on doing to turn the team around?

The one person who actually responded to that question said that Paxson does not do a good job communicating what his vision is.

Balderdash!

Perhaps as of late that’s the case, but that’s just because the drek he was spewing for years has turned out to be complete bunk.

All his right way, draft the players that know how to win and play the right way, coachable, take one for the team garbage has resulted in the mess you see before you.

Now he has nothing, IMO. That was his thing, and his thing didn’t work. Once he had to fire his hard-*** coach and was left with a roster of yes-men for that coach without the Bobby Knight type, the team was lost. Adrift with broken jib.

Now what is there? Is there any vision? A plan? What is the goal? What is the time frame?

If there isn't a firm answer for this from Paxson with a concrete timeline soon he should resign. The Bulls fans deserve better than an empty suit at the top.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm sorry but Paxson should be FIRED! He should not be given the chance to step down.. he has done some ok things with building a competitive squad but he has failed big time in evaluating talent and making trades to get this team better. 

If Skiles was Fired, Pax should be fired.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> In rebuttal:
> 
> 1. The signing of Pippen did hurt the team. We did not have that money to go after younger, healthier players like James Posey.


James Posey is a dirty player who is mostly reviled in Chicago. He wouldn't have lasted long, playing behind Deng and Nocioni.



> 2. JR Smith IMO is a tremendous talent. The last couple of games he has just torched the opposition in the West. Plays very good defense too if you actually saw him play. Can shoot as well as Gordon but is much bigger and plays better defense. Also has a better handle. Perhaps you caught a glimpse of his play when he lit-up the Bulls a couple of months ago?


Inconsistent, low basketball IQ, poor decision maker, indifferent to defense. Pass.



> 3. Your right, who needs Aldridge. He is just going to be a 20/10 guy for the next ten years and help lead Portland, along with Roy and Oden, to the top of the West in the next few years. Thomas will still be an undersized power forward with an erratic jump shot and a poor attitude.


Perhaps you missed the part were I said I wanted the team to select Aldridge (or Roy), even though he's not really a "power" forward and more closely resembles Channing Frye with better rebounding. How does Aldridge help with our lack of *low *post scoring?

And regarding Thomas, once again: if you wanted the team to keep Chandler, you can't turn around and trash Thomas. Patience, and all that... I didn't want Thomas, but I don't want to see him develop into a great defensive player somewhere else. I'm willing to give him a few more years.



> 4. If Tim Thomas didn't fit in with the team the Bulls should have moved him and received some compensation in return. Paxson's failure to do this just showed his mean-spirited, stupid attitude towards some players. Remember what he did to Corie Blount?


It's tough to move a guy with that contract, when no one really wants him except Phoenix (who weren't willing to pay all that salary, anyway).



> 5. George W. Bush is also a well educated man. He went to Yale and Harvard. Does that make him an intelligent executive? (Aside from being a blunderer and mass-murderer.)


It hasn't stopped you from adopting the strategy of Bush and his cronies. You've essentially dreamed up a phantom enemy and accused everyone else of treason for questioning your single-minded pursuit if it. And yet you throw around terms like "mean-spirited," ignoring how hypocritical you sound.



> 6. Yes, I agree. You should question your own intelligence. Being a knee-jerk supporter of John Paxson is no way to go through life.


You are quite adept at repeating cliched message board insults. I'm sure you're anxiously waiting for someone to make a typo. "Moron! It's pista*ch*io!"


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

> John Paxson
> 
> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100"><tbody><tr><td>
> 
> ...





> *Draft Picks*
> 
> 2003: Kirk Hinrich (seventh), Mario Austin (36th), Matt Bonner (45th) – traded to Toronto, Tommy Smith (53rd)
> 
> ...


from here


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i'd like to see some evidence, history or organzational track record of a team or its fan base asking or seeking the resignation of a GM with a record of making the playoffs 3 of the last 4 years.

i wonder if any organzation with that kind of run would consider their GM an "epic failure":lol:

or consider his philosophical approach "laugable".....



> But dumb, wrong-headed ideas that have been proven to be dumb and wrong-headed should be called out.


i agree; and believing that there's a valid reason for paxson to resign is just that.

also, for the "if skiles was fired, paxson should be fired" ops, peter vescey had an article just yesterday refuting the "firing of skiles"; reportedly skiles went to paxson/reinsdorf and admitted he wasn't reaching the players and asked out of his deal (read: quit). reinsdorf consented with the compliance of skiles to forfeit some of his guaranteed dollars, which he did. i submit that for PR purposes from skiles' standpoint, of course he wouldn't want to appear to have quit, it would have hurt him professionally; coaches are fired all the time, and i suspect paxson would and could stand the heat.

if necessary, i'll get the link.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> In four seasons as Executive Vice President of Basketball Operations, John Paxson has rebuilt the department, from the player roster to the staff, leading to a successful present and exciting future.


"Successful present and exciting future"

LOL, that's a hoot.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I'm sorry but Paxson should be FIRED! He should not be given the chance to step down.. he has done some ok things with building a competitive squad but he has failed big time in evaluating talent and making trades to get this team better.
> 
> If Skiles was Fired, Pax should be fired.


Exactly. Not every GM makes the right choices all of the time nor do they make the wrong choices all the time. However, Paxson's "batting average" is pretty mediocre in my book. 

My beef with him is that (1) he was inexperienced when hired. That is mainly Reinsdorf's fault; (2) he demonstrates bad judgment in player evaluation, acquisition, and reimbursement; and (3) his handling of certain player, agent and media relations demonstrates lack of personal and "political" skills, e.g. Curry, Tim Thomas, Corie Blount.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i agree; and believing that there's a valid reason for paxson to resign is just that.


Your passionate support of the mediocre at best and likely inept shows where your head is at.


Of course, you also compared the Paxson Bulls to the San Antonio Spurs, so you clearly have a strange (IMO) way of looking at the world. I'm no "coach," but comparing the lousy Paxson Bulls to the Spurs is a real head-scratcher. You are also the guy who was giddy to run a very good player like Tyson Chandler out of town. That was really, really wrong as well. To each their own. But every time I see your posts, I think of you comparing the Paxson Bulls to the Spurs and that you were happy to see Chandler go. That's what you are known for.

Its always interesting going back and forth with you.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> "Successful present and exciting future"
> 
> LOL, that's a hoot.


I don't agree with much of your posting, but I'll be honest and say it made me chuckle a little too :biggrin: 

(The successful present part anyway- because I do think we have a very exciting future)


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I think what needs to be done in this thread is quote this right here and value Paxson over these moves...
*
Draft Picks*

2003: Kirk Hinrich (seventh), Mario Austin (36th), Matt Bonner (45th) – traded to Toronto, Tommy Smith (53rd) 

2004: Ben Gordon (third), Jackson Vroman (31st) – traded to Phoenix, Chris Duhon (36th) 

2006: LaMarcus Aldridge (second) – traded to Portland, Rodney Carney (16th) – traded to Philadelphia 

2007: Joakim Noah (ninth), Aaron Gray (49th), JamesOn Curry (51st) 
*
Free Agent Signees

* Malik Allen, Eddie Basden, Corie Blount, Tyson Chandler, Jamal Crawford*, Eddy Curry*, Chris Duhon, Ronald Dupree, Lawrence Funderburke, Kendall Gill, Stephen Graham, Adrian Griffin, Othella Harrington, Kirk Hinrich, Randy Holcomb, Linton Johnson III, Randy Livingston, Andrés Nocioni, Jannero Pargo, Scottie Pippen, Jared Reiner, Luke Schenscher, Paul Shirley, Joe Smith, Darius Songaila, James Thomas, Gary Trent and Ben Wallace. _* Indicates the player re-signed with Chicago in a sign-and-trade deal with another team_
*
Trades*

June 26, 2003 – Conveyed to Toronto the draft rights to No. 45 pick Matt Bonner in exchange for a future second round selection. 

December 1, 2003 – Acquired Antonio Davis, Chris Jeffries and Jerome Williams from Toronto in exchange for Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall and Lonny Baxter. 

December 16, 2003 – Acquired Rick Brunson from Toronto in exchange for Roger Mason, Jr. 

June 24, 2004 – Acquired the draft rights to No. 7 pick Luol Deng from Phoenix in exchange for a future conditional first-round pick, the draft rights to 31st pick Jackson Vroman and cash considerations. 

August 5, 2004 – Acquired Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington, Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski from New York in exchange for Jamal Crawford and Jerome Williams. 

September 8, 2004 – Acquired Eric Piatkowski, Adrian Griffin and Mike Wilks from Houston in exchange for Dikembe Mutombo. 

October 4, 2005 – Conveyed to the New York Knicks the contract of Antonio Davis and the signed-and-traded contract of Eddy Curry. In exchange, New York conveyed to Chicago the contracts of Tim Thomas and Michael Sweetney, the signed-and-traded contract of Jermaine Jackson, New York’s conditional 2006 first-round pick and New York’s regular second-round draft choice in 2007 and 2009. 

June 28, 2006 – Acquired the draft rights to No. 4 pick Tyrus Thomas and Viktor Khryapa from Portland in exchange for the draft rights to No. 2 pick LaMarcus Aldridge and a future second-round pick. 

June 28, 2006 – Acquired the draft rights to No. 13 pick Thabo Sefolosha from Philadelphia for the draft rights to No. 16 pick Rodney Carney, New York’s 2007 second-round pick and cash. 

July 14, 2006 – Acquired P.J. Brown and J.R. Smith from New Orleans/Oklahoma City for Tyson Chandler. 

July 20, 2006 – Traded J.R. Smith to Denver in exchange for two future second-round draft picks. 

August 18, 2006 – Acquired Martynas Andriuskevicius from Cleveland in exchange for Eddie Basden.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Everyone needs to chill out.

Some people seem to want to ignore that Paxson took a miserable team and made is respectable by making the playoffs the last several years. They also want to ignore that virtually the identical squad to this one made it to the 2nd round last year.

Others seem to want to ignore that this season has been a terrible failure. They also seem to ignore that mere respectability isn't the end goal.

The truth is the guy has had successes and failures. He has not been an overwhelming failure as some insist, nor has he been blisteringly successful. He's probably done well enough to warrant an opportunity this summer to shake things up and see whether he can put a good team on the floor next year. He hasn't done well enough to warrant much beyond that, IMO. 

The thing to keep in mind is this year's terrible season was completely unforeseen. The Bulls were predicted by many to make the ECF or the NBA Finals. I can't think of anyone who predicted they'd miss the playoffs entirely. So, it's very duplicitous to act as though this all should have been foreseen. Nobody else was smart enough to see it coming, so why would Paxson have been? The question now is that after having a bad season, will the ship be righted? If so, how?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I think what needs to be done in this thread is quote this right here and value Paxson over these moves...
> *
> Draft Picks*
> 
> ...


there. you guys need to chill. we're talking about Paxson here and there is no need to attack the fans. (sorry if it seems i'm arm-chair moderating) just trying to get the thread on topic.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yes, being this bad was unforeseen. These guys can win more games than they lose in the NBA regular season when they outwork the other teams. And the East is really, really weak. Of course, a team that is limited in talent and gets by on giving 110% isn't going to make much noise in the NBA. 

Paxson's way was just unrealistic in the NBA. And his inability to pull off the consolidation trade just doomed his chances for success.
So did building the team around a coach. Bad move in the NBA.

Maybe stage one was A to B and than post Skiles firing and post star acquisition was supposed to be B to C. Well, he really ****ed up B to C, and if B or back to A is the end result of 5 years of building, than you failed. Making the playoffs in a bad conference isn’t an accomplishment of note.


Anyway, the question stands. What is Paxson's vision? Do you think he has one? Just "shaking things up" isn't a good way to go. Anyone can do that. Given that 5 years under Paxson has landed us here, why is Paxson the right person to do the "shaking up?" If he does not have a clear, sound vision and the desire to take us to a good place, he should resign. Otherwise he's just collecting checks.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Anyway, the question stands. What is Paxson's vision? Do you think he has one? Just "shaking things up" isn't a good way to go. Anyone can do that. Given that 5 years under Paxson has landed us here, why is Paxson the right person to do the "shaking up?"


Well, I think you (wrongfully) think that I'm a bit Pro-Paxson guy and will stand up for him. I'm really not. I'm not as polar as either side that seems to be voiced here. 

To answer you frankly, I have no idea what Paxson's "vision" is going to be. It seems clear from interviews with him over the course of this season that he has lost faith in many of these players and will be seeking to revamp things next season. I have no idea what form that will take, though. Boylan will be promptly sent packing, to be sure. After that, I'd imagine they'll shop Gordon in a sign-and-trade, but his salary expectations may well be a big impediment. Suffice it to say I couldn't tell you exactly who will be gone, but I expect "core" players to be shipped out.

However you want to characterize the vision before, it seems that Paxson is ready to move on. Whether he can do so effectively remains to be seen.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Case said:


> James Posey is a dirty player who is mostly reviled in Chicago. He wouldn't have lasted long, playing behind Deng and Nocioni.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't mind you supporting Paxson but try using better arguments. Posey helped Miami win a championship. Also, I believe it was yesterday at either the Fox or Sports Illustrated NBA site where one of their writers said that Posey was actually the MVP of the Celtics. Doc Rivers raved about him in the article. Saying he wouldn't "last long" in Chicago because he is a dirty player is ridiculous. Moreover, I don't think the Bulls had Nocioni at the time. Also, Rodman was a dirty player and he helped the Bulls win 3 titles. Would you have rather had Pippen?

JR Smith is saving Denver from a bad season by stepping up and winning big games for them. He may have had personal problems coming out of high school but his talent is unquestioned. Your characterization of him is the reason Pax moved him to Denver for two middle second rounders. Any serious basketball fan, sportswriter, etc. would agree that this was a big mistake. Smith is a major talent and he will be in the league a long time. Too bad he doesn't have the talent and maturity of JamesOn Curry.

I am not advocating giving away Thomas for nothing. Nor, did I advocate giving Chandler away for nothing. Chandler was disappointing, but Paxson did not get value for him. This is just common knowledge among anybody who follows the NBA. Do you know any serious person connected to the game who says that the Hornets didn't get a steal on this deal?

Why the trashing of Aldridge as not being a "low post scorer?" I think he has averaged about 25 points a game over the last month. Why do Bulls fans keep trying to rationalize that awful draft day trade?

Tim Thomas was terrific playing for Phoenix in case you forgot. I find it hard to believe that a competent GM couldn't get something in return for a large, expiring contract. 

Then to add insult to injury you compare me to George Bush. The "phantom" enemy I am fighting is the misguided notion that Paxson is a good GM. What the Bulls should do is what the Knicks did. Bring in an experienced GM who knows what he is doing. The fans of Chicago deserve better than this.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Anyway, the question stands. What is Paxson's vision? Do you think he has one? Just "shaking things up" isn't a good way to go. Anyone can do that. Given that 5 years under Paxson has landed us here, why is Paxson the right person to do the "shaking up?" If he does not have a clear, sound vision and the desire to take us to a good place, he should resign. Otherwise he's just collecting checks.


I think one of the problems, k4e, is that people resent being labled "Paxson lovers" or "devout paxson" followers just for offering anything in support of the guy... I honestly would give him a B- as a GM, which I consider to be alright, but not great... however, there is no room for me in your discussion... either you are all the way on one side, or all the way on the other... it kills the conversation.  

Also, again, I'd like to ask... who should be the GM? If not Paxson, who you obviously hate, then who?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I love how I keep trying to talk about Paxson's moves and everyone is ignoring me... thanks guys. 

I'm out.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Also, again, I'd like to ask... who should be the GM? If not Paxson, who you obviously hate, then who?


Different topic ... different thread. 

Why don't you start one?

Its not a matter of hatred... its just that I didn't think he would take the Bulls to a good place (which he didn't) and I don't think he really has the ability to do it going forward. I think he's OK at best and likely inept. Of course, if he cares to state what his plan is going forward, I'll listen.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Different topic ... different thread.
> 
> Why don't you start one?


Ask and ye shall receive.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I find it really easy to GM behind the screen of a computer. You make that thread Donado and we'll see some magic GM'ing.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Yes, being this bad was unforeseen. These guys can win more games than the lose in the NBA regular season when they outwork the other teams. Of course, a team that is limited in talent and gets by on giving 110% isn't going to make much noise in the NBA. Paxson's way was just unrealistic in the NBA. And his inability to pull off the consolidation trade just doomed the franchise.
> 
> Anyway, the question stands. What is Paxson's vision? Do you think he has one? Just "shaking things up" isn't a good way to go. Anyone can do that. Given that 5 years under Paxson has landed us here, why is Paxson the right person to do the "shaking up?"


since you chose to ignore *my* query, i'll try to refrain from insults and such; but it's increasingly difficult and a major reason why you "cry wolf" when people "attack" your opinions......i don't mind a good debate myself, however you inability to post with any sort of objectivity is a primary reason why your posts garner so much ridicule and lack of support.

a) drafting players from winning programs is "unrealistic" as a viable way to build a basketball team? in what world? further, which players from non-winning programs would you have preferred?

b) limited in talent? you like to drum up phony and empty stats to frame your positions; which star players should be on the bulls but aren't? chandler? i'm burnt out trying to debate him; he's a limited player who's gotten a second chance at a career due to CP3; he didn't have that here and the fact of 7 pts and 7 boards for his career support that. you like him, i think the bulls would have been 30 and whatever *with *him; the horse is dead, i'm not beating him anymore.

and outside of any players currently successful in the league drafted after this group, well any fan can say "look at him, pax dropped the ball", which is precisely what the couple of you do.

c) you seem to believe that good/great teams don't "work hard" and that the bulls ideology of "hard work" is opposite of successful teams. THAT is the comparison to the SA team and it's organization. i'd like to hear your take on how you think successful organizations become such; by acquiring SUPERSTARS at every available turn and by any means necessary? by cutting corners and not holding players accountable? which franchises have been successful by showcasing knuckleheads as their premier players? has JR Smith moved the nuggets anywhere? carmelo, with his latest DUI? how'd zack randolph do in NY? Tim Thomas has resurrected the clips too, huh?

yes, i'd like to see garnett, kobe or lebron get by without giving 110%.....do you actually think they be superstars? 

d) "the franchise is doomed"......another hyperbolic statement based on what? multiple posts have acknowledged the playoff were met 3 of the last 4 years, and i posed the question that in the HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE is there any evidence of a GM being removed or resigning with that track record. you've conveniently ignored that, so i can't view the "chicken little" position/opinion as particularly viable nor worth my time in a debate; it isn't, and time will prove who's right. considering your erroneous and unfactual post based on two clowns (media or not) "speculation", *and* paxson's retention, i'd hazard to say, my position is closer to reality that yours.

e) as far as "what is paxson's vision"? this is another indication that the casual fan can only see what he sees.....considering the changes that have taken place since the twin busts have left, (once more for those who can't keep up) he's noted that he wanted the team to become longer and more athletic; he's consistently brought up "team play" and "good defense" as consistent tenets. maybe you missed that looking for.....what i don't know. it's been missing this season, but there's no reason a competent coach won't re-implement that with these same players; you know "the utter failure" that won 49 games last year.

i could go on and on, but this won't get through and frankly with just 2 or 3 of your types it's really not worth it. keep trying though; your hyperbole is funny for the most part.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> a) drafting players from winning programs is "unrealistic" as a viable way to build a basketball team? in what world?


College experience is all but irrelevant in the NBA. Winning programs that have played in the big games is all but irrelevant. NCAA pedigree? Final Four experience? All but irrelevant.

Lebron
KG
Dwight Howard (paxson said he would prefer okafor)
Kobe

0 "big game experience" when they were drafted. That should not even really be on the radar for the NBA.





> b) limited in talent? you like to drum up phony and empty stats to frame your positions; which star players should be on the bulls but aren't? chandler?


Phony and empty only to you. The rest of the rational thinking world is embracing them. Of course, your non-stat based analysis leads to statements like "the Paxson Bulls are like the Spurs" and "Chandler is awful" so you keep your flawed approach and I'll keep mine, thank you very much.






> and outside of any players currently successful in the league drafted after this group, well any fan can say "look at him, pax dropped the ball", which is precisely what the couple of you do.


Nah. I'm looking at 5 years of time. multiple high lotto picks. A near MAX contract to play with. His own coach. Everything any GM could want. And we're at where we're at. You want to play the game of picking away at every transaction and framing it that way. Its a lot simpler than that. 

He's lost more games than he's won.
He's accomplished nothing of note.
5 years into his reign, the Bulls suck.
The future looks bleak.
There is no real plan for the future that has been offered.






> c) you seem to believe that good/great teams don't "work hard" and that the bulls ideology of "hard work" is opposite of successful teams.


No, of course not. But a myopic focus on "hard work" at the expense of talent is foolish.

Talent is what is essential. Talent trumps jib. Every time.

Hard working all-league talent is a superstar. Without the talent, you are just a grinder. Burning your high lotto picks on limited upside, hard workers dooms you long term. Sure, Paxson got a quick bump with his "grinders" and got the Bulls to .500 ish. Chicago Grizzlies. But that's it. End of the road.



---

Your comments about "the casual fan" are kind of funny. Would you consider yourself a casual fan? I know that you have claimed you are some kind of "coach" which is all fine and dandy, but all I know about you other than your "coach-hood" is that you compare Paxson's Bulls to the Spurs and that you had nothing good to say about Tyson Chandler. Both of these statements are horribly wrong-headed.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Phony and empty only to you. The rest of the rational thinking world is embracing them. Of course, your non-stat based analysis leads to statements like "the Paxson Bulls are like the Spurs" and "Chandler is awful" so you keep your flawed approach and I'll keep mine, thank you very much.


done; end of my participation is this useless thread.......:cheers:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> done; end of my participation is this useless thread.......:cheers:


That's a shame.

Go Bulls!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I love how I keep trying to talk about Paxson's moves and everyone is ignoring me... thanks guys.
> 
> I'm out.


Do me a favor and take Tyrus Thomas with ya.. LOl JK.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> I don't mind you supporting Paxson but try using better arguments.


I don't mind if you don't support Paxson, but try reading what I'm actually writing. And, as I and other posters have noted, it's easy to claim you're one of a select few with any sense, while the rest of us are giving "knee-jerk" responses (or less complimentary characterizations) simply because we disagree. Just because you don't see things as I (or many others here) do doesn't make my (and others') position inferior. So don't cry when I compare your tactics to those of Bush, as that's the strategy he and his cronies have been using for almost 8 years. It's not an argument that advances the discussion anywhere meaningful.

As an aside, I also challenge being slapped with a "supporting Paxson" label. I've criticized moves I didn't like and given him slack on things he can't change. It's a more nuanced view than one that just unequivocally bashes or praises the guy.



> Posey helped Miami win a championship. Also, I believe it was yesterday at either the Fox or Sports Illustrated NBA site where one of their writers said that Posey was actually the MVP of the Celtics. Doc Rivers raved about him in the article. Saying he wouldn't "last long" in Chicago because he is a dirty player is ridiculous. Moreover, I don't think the Bulls had Nocioni at the time. Also, Rodman was a dirty player and he helped the Bulls win 3 titles. Would you have rather had Pippen?


You misunderstand. Posey has played dirty *against Chicago*. That's why he wouldn't last long here. Posey's dirtiness is different than Rodman's. Rodman played mind games. Guys like Posey and Bowen try to hurt people.



> JR Smith is saving Denver from a bad season by stepping up and winning big games for them. He may have had personal problems coming out of high school but his talent is unquestioned. Your characterization of him is the reason Pax moved him to Denver for two middle second rounders. Any serious basketball fan, sportswriter, etc. would agree that this was a big mistake. Smith is a major talent and he will be in the league a long time. Too bad he doesn't have the talent and maturity of JamesOn Curry.


Here's the same strategy again: "anyone *serious *about basketball MUST agree with me." We agree that he has a knack for scoring; I'm not disputing that. But basketball isn't all about scoring, and he's bounced around the league because of those other issues I already cited in my previous post. Let's not forget: Denver was trying to trade him THIS season.



> I am not advocating giving away Thomas for nothing. Nor, did I advocate giving Chandler away for nothing. Chandler was disappointing, but Paxson did not get value for him. This is just common knowledge among anybody who follows the NBA. Do you know any serious person connected to the game who says that the Hornets didn't get a steal on this deal?


I didn't say anything about whether the Hornets got a steal on the Chandler deal, so I don't know why you're trying to frame the discussion otherwise. It's another classic strategy that doesn't get us anywhere: define the other person's position for them, so that they're defending themselves from a position of weakness. It's good for making someone frustrated or angry, but it doesn't do anything for continuing the dialogue.



> Why the trashing of Aldridge as not being a "low post scorer?" I think he has averaged about 25 points a game over the last month. Why do Bulls fans keep trying to rationalize that awful draft day trade?


It's not "trashing" him to point out that he's more of a jump shooter than a low post scorer. Michael Redd scores about 25 ppg, and he's not a low post scorer either. Scoring 25 points says nothing about where those points were scored. What were you saying about using better arguments?

And as I've already said, I'm not trying to rationalize the trade, nor was I happy about it on draft day. But we have Thomas now, so maybe we should wait and see if he can turn into something special. I don't see the value in living in the past and constantly whining about the trade. It's over; let's move forward.



> Tim Thomas was terrific playing for Phoenix in case you forgot. I find it hard to believe that a competent GM couldn't get something in return for a large, expiring contract.


Nope, didn't forget. This further confirms, though, that you're not really reading what I'm writing. I already said Thomas fit Phoenix's style. But they weren't altogether crushed when he left, and he couldn't replicate that success when he went to LA. Thomas was included in that trade to make salaries match; with a more trade-friendly CBA, he wouldn't have been a Bull in the first place. With his poor work ethic, I'm not sorry he didn't stay long.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> No, of course not. But a myopic focus on "hard work" at the expense of talent is foolish.
> 
> Talent is what is essential. Talent trumps jib. Every time.


Calm down there buddy, I think US Cellular Field just shook once you said this lol.

I'm glad you said this, this board and this town in general is full of morons who think Jib and "Hard Work" is all that is needed to be a great team.

I'm sick and tired of this mentality where Bears Weather = winning conditions, where diving into a stupid wall = grinder, where rebounds and a crappy offensive game is all you need to be a team leader! 

Since when did Chicago turn into the home of the sports retarded.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Calm down there buddy, I think US Cellular Field just shook once you said this lol.
> 
> I'm glad you said this, this board and this town in general is full of morons who think Jib and "Hard Work" is all that is needed to be a great team.
> 
> ...


I've listened to Boers and Bernstein too, so I know the argument verbatim...

Unfortunately nobody on this board said that hard work was all that is needed to be a great team... and very few people in the Chicago area actually think that, so you, Boers, and Bernstein (and I actually don't mind those guys usually) are essentially fighting with nobody.


And if you think this board, in general, is full of morons, then I suggest you post elsewhere.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I love how I keep trying to talk about Paxson's moves and everyone is ignoring me... thanks guys.
> 
> I'm out.


I made a similar attempt in a thread I created (I think it was called "What would you have done?" or something like that), and it didn't get much traffic.

Most people don't seem to want to talk about his moves and what specifically they would have done differently. Instead, they just want to attach labels (and parrot those labels continuously).


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I've listened to Boers and Bernstein too, so I know the argument verbatim...
> 
> Unfortunately nobody on this board said that hard work was all that is needed to be a great team... and very few people in the Chicago area actually think that, so you, Boers, and Bernstein (and I actually don't mind those guys usually) are essentially fighting with nobody.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about! 

You must not have been here when people where talking about Andres Nocioni being a better player than Dirk because he works harder! LOL.

Or the Jib year of 2006! Ugh!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> What are you talking about!
> 
> You must not have been here when people where talking about Andres Nocioni being a better player than Dirk because he works harder! LOL.
> 
> Or the Jib year of 2006! Ugh!


I've been here as long as you have... but its a disservice to those people to reduce their argument (that good character guys are important... and who can blame them following Jalen Rose, Ron Mercer, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry... etc...) to such an absurd level.

And seriously, if people were that unreasonable before, they aren't around anymore... which leaves the rest of us (people who know that Dirk is better than Andres Nocioni) to deal with irrational arguments against John Paxson. 

The Bulls struggled this year, and the discussion has been dominated by people trying to scream "I told you so!"... it used to be that the talk centered around how to build the team, and the forum thrived.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> I don't mind you supporting Paxson but try using better arguments. Posey helped Miami win a championship. Also, I believe it was yesterday at either the Fox or Sports Illustrated NBA site where one of their writers said that Posey was actually the MVP of the Celtics. Doc Rivers raved about him in the article. Saying he wouldn't "last long" in Chicago because he is a dirty player is ridiculous. Moreover, I don't think the Bulls had Nocioni at the time. Also, Rodman was a dirty player and he helped the Bulls win 3 titles. Would you have rather had Pippen?
> 
> JR Smith is saving Denver from a bad season by stepping up and winning big games for them. He may have had personal problems coming out of high school but his talent is unquestioned. Your characterization of him is the reason Pax moved him to Denver for two middle second rounders. Any serious basketball fan, sportswriter, etc. would agree that this was a big mistake. Smith is a major talent and he will be in the league a long time. Too bad he doesn't have the talent and maturity of JamesOn Curry.
> 
> ...


Donnie Walsh is a poor choice to point out as someone you'd like as an upgrade over Pax. Walsh's career accomplishments:

Seasons: 17
Playoffs: 13
Division Titles: 3
Conference Titles: 1

vs. Pax's:

Seasons: 5
Playoffs: 3
Division Titles: 0
Conference Titles: 0

Walsh's first five years:

Seasons: 5
Playoffs: 3
Division Titles: 0
Conference Titles: 0
Overall Record: 189-221 (Inherited .500 playoff 1st round exit team)

Walsh, as GM for 20+ years, has not won a championship, only 3 division titles, and 1 conference championship. Can't say for sure, but I think it isn't too outlandish to think that Pax could do as much with 20+ years to work...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I've been here as long as you have... but its a disservice to those people to reduce their argument (that good character guys are important... and who can blame them following Jalen Rose, Ron Mercer, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry... etc...) to such an absurd level.


One of those guys, Jalen Rose, is one of the classier players in the NBA if you ever met him and was the best player (EFF) on a team that went to the NBA Finals. He's also been to the FInal Four on a good college team, if you are the type of person that matters for.

Another player (Crawford) is stuck on a lousy team but is more statistically productive than any of our guards and was beloved by the father of "the right way", Larry Brown, a coach that has actually accomplished things of note.

Curry was the leading scorer, #2 in MPG and top 3 in EFF and PER for a team that was the #3 team in the East. That was the last Bulls team that seemed like it could turn out to be a true contender. Balance at every position. Players of a proper size. Young and ready to grow. Of course, Paxson decided to go with undersized and jibby. Now we're ****ed.

Its also interesting how Chandler used to be lumped into this group, now he’s not. Very, very interesting.





> to deal with irrational arguments against John Paxson.


John Paxson has lost more games than he has won.
John Paxson has accomplished little of note in the NBA as a GM.
John Paxson has been on the job for 5 years and has burned through multiple high lotto picks, a hand picked coach and a near MAX contract. 5 years later the Bulls suck.
The future for the Bulls looks bleak.
There is no stated plan or vision for the future.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Donnie Walsh is a poor choice to point out as someone you'd like as an upgrade over Pax. Walsh's career accomplishments:
> 
> Seasons: 17
> Playoffs: 13
> ...


Nice.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> One of those guys, *Jalen Rose*, is one of the classier players in the NBA if you ever met him and was the best player (EFF) on a team that went to the NBA finals.
> 
> Another player (*Crawford*) is stuck on a lousy team but is more statistically productive than any of our guards and was beloved by the father of "the right way", Larry Brown, a coach that has actually accomplished things of note.
> 
> ...


I always thought Chandler was a hard worker... he was my favorite Bull, so I don't know how interesting that really is, but nice insinuation... 


Rose - by the time he got to us he shot too much and didn't play defense. I don't care what he did with Indiana.

Crawford - "Stuck" on a lousy team is one way to look at it, losingest active player in the NBA is another. Does your argument really turn around statistics for Jamal Crawford? Stats on bad teams don't mean much... Mike James scored 20 ppg once. 

Curry - Again, 2005 was a nice year, but the "2nd leading minutes" guy line is misleading, since he still didn't play over 30 mpg. 


So what is your point? That we'd be better off with these guys? If you really think that, I don't know if there's much I can do for you.


As for the laundry list, which we've seen before...

1. Losing record - you yourself said it didn't matter, so I don't want to hear it... the whole point is to win championships, no? 

2. What is "of note"? If you're talking about winning titles, then you are right... but then, how many GMs "of note" are there?

3. On the draft picks... he has hit and missed, I agree, but it is again misleading (just like the Curry mpg stat, which you use ad nauseum)... at least two of them are works in progress (Noah, Tyrus) and another one of them is a 22 year old who came out after one year of college... aren't they allowed time to develop?

I realize those things don't matter to you... but to most basketball fans Paxson's regime has been a combination of the good and the bad, not one or the other.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> One of those guys, Jalen Rose, is one of the classier players in the NBA if you ever met him and was the best player (EFF) on a team that went to the NBA Finals. He's also been to the FInal Four on a good college team, if you are the type of person that matters for.


Those highlights are aberrations when you take a look at his NBA career as a whole. Just as you and I discussed about Curry's stats when he won when he was here.



> Another player (Crawford) is stuck on a lousy team but is more statistically productive than any of our guards and was beloved by the father of "the right way", Larry Brown, a coach that has actually accomplished things of note.


He's had plenty of time to prove himself a winner, and hasn't done it. He is a uninterestingly average NBA guard without any ceiling left to climb into. We wouldn't be better for having kept him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Here's an end-of-season recap about Curry and Crawford. I think it shows that not much changed from when they were here:



> On my way out, I found a copy of the Rockets’ internal scouting report. It told all you needed to know about why these Knicks were doomed to disappoint:
> 
> Stephon Marbury: “Tends to go into or under every pick and will leave his feet on shot fakes.”
> 
> ...





> Curry reported to camp last fall at a svelte 280, but somehow—despite a private chef and the attentions of Tim Grover, personal trainer to the stars—packed it on through the season, till rolls of flab peeked through the armholes of his jersey. When asked where he tipped the scale, he begged off with an ingenue’s giggle.
> 
> “I like Eddy a lot, but he’s just too big,” says Oakley, the soul of Pat Riley’s obdurate squads of the nineties. “You can’t move when you’re like that.” As the leviathan fatigues, he reaches and fouls, drops easy passes, clanks dunks off the rim. After the Clippers trimmed the Knicks by nine, I asked center Chris Kaman how he knew when Curry was tiring. Kaman smiled and said, “When you run down court and he’s 30, 40 feet behind you.”





> With the group crying out for a leader, Jamal Crawford tiptoed into the vacuum. But some wondered if the skinny guard was too much the blithe company man, “just happy to lace up and wear that orange and blue every night,” as he told me. He’d been an unabashed fan of Thomas from boyhood, even wearing the same number. Crawford, says Percy Allen, a Seattle sportswriter who’d known him since the player was 15, “likes to please whoever he’s with at that minute.”


http://nymag.com/news/sports/45787/


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> He's had plenty of time to prove himself a winner, and hasn't done it. He is a uninterestingly average NBA guard without any ceiling left to climb into. We wouldn't be better for having kept him.




Jamal Crawford would not be able to singlehandedly turn around this Paxson created stink-hole, I agree.

Jamal Crawford was statistically better than any guard on our team this season. You loved Paxson's picks of Hinrich and Gordon. Crawford outperformed them both.

You agreed with almost all of Paxson's moves that led us here. You passionately agreed. That’s what you are known for. Passionately and ardently agreeing with what Paxson did the last 5 years. And we’re at where we’re at.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Neither would his and Curry's presence meant anything this season.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal Crawford would not be able to singlehandedly turn around this Paxson created stick-hole, I agree.


Or play on a team that won 40 games, ever.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

--


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> If Jamal Crawford were a reality show, *he'd be The Biggest Loser, NBA Edition*.
> 
> That label is a bit harsh for someone with Crawford's raw ability, work ethic and ebullient personality. But that regrettable title fits because Crawford has the record to back it up.
> 
> ...


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2008/03/30/2008-03-30_untitled__crawford30s.html


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Here's an end-of-season recap about Curry and Crawford. I think it shows that not much changed from when they were here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This post is way off topic. No armchair moderation, please.  He's dragging the thread off topic.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Huh? I thought the topic turned to Crawford and Curry.

Tell me why it shouldn't be there and I'll self-edit.



I just think you object to the way the topic turned against your argument: http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...axson-consider-resignation-6.html#post5425927


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal Crawford was statistically better than any guard on our team this season. You loved Paxson's picks of Hinrich and Gordon. Crawford outperformed them both.
> 
> You agreed with almost all of Paxson's moves that led us here. You passionately agreed. That’s what you are known for. Passionately and ardently agreeing with what Paxson did the last 5 years. And we’re at where we’re at.


I didn't see your edit.

He did it on a bad team. See the article above for a consensus thought about his ability. Solid, not great.

And I'm on record as saying it's the players that have failed this season...and it had nothing to do with the GM. I still like our players. Some need to go and will have good careers away from the Bulls. And we need a coach.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Someone has to shut GB down here.
> 
> Where are the mods?
> 
> He's out of control (once again).


 The mods are doing their jobs just fine. We don't need two posts in a row asking for a censorship of GB because you don't want to talk to him anymore. Dornado mentioned Crawford and Curry, and you devoted paragraphs to them in response. Don't act like people don't see through this nonsense.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do me a favor and take Tyrus Thomas with ya.. LOl JK.


:rofl2: damn man you harsh, but funny


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Huh? I thought the topic turned to Crawford and Curry.
> 
> Tell me why it shouldn't be there and I'll self-edit.
> 
> ...



Yes, please self-edit.

This thread is about "should john paxson resign"

I know you would love to talk about anything other than the GM you so passionately defended all these years has turned out to be a failure. But, please, start your own thread.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

EDIT


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes, please self-edit.
> 
> This thread is about "should john paxson resign"
> 
> I know you would love to talk about anything other than the GM you so passionately defended all these years has turned out to be a failure. But, please, start your own thread.


As long as others discuss them as Paxson mistakes, my "passion for Paxson" makes me defend them as worthy of having been tossed. 

So...will you be editing your defense of Rose, Curry and Crawford?

(now we're truly off-topic...so lets get back on it)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Will you be editing your defense of Rose, Curry and Crawford?


Fair enough.

BTW, Paxson is a proven loser. You passionately supported and defended the majority of his moves.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mods, could you please create a new thread with all this Crawford stuff in it?

I'd love to discuss Crawford vs Paxson's chosen son Hinrich this year, but not in this thread.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> BTW, Paxson is a proven loser. You passionately supported and defended the majority of his moves.


Unless the standard is whether or not you made the playoffs... in which case he's a proven winner... er, at least a proven not-loser... and around we go!


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> No the tired post comment wasn't at you ballerkingn, EDIT
> 
> As for Al and Josh, I'd take them both over Deng and Gordon. Heck I'd take ONE of them alone over both Deng and Gordon. The 2 were put in horrible positions right off the bat, on horrible teams with no supporting cast, and were right out of high school. So they're not only better than both Deng and Gordon, but they're younger and have WAY higher ceilings. (I've always been a big Josh Smith fan though...the guy is just a beast. Haven't seen Al play all that much, but he definitely produces)



Can argue with you about the high school guys,they are both studs.And do have higher ceilings then both ben and deng.But you know what i love about both of them though,they are beast.They play so aggressive and with a nastiness that you need in this league.Deng and ben or both soft.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I'd rather it not be moved. If this is the signature thread about Paxson tenure as GM, this history belongs in it.

It developed as a natural part of the conversation.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Unless the standard is whether or not you made the playoffs... in which case he's a proven winner... er, at least a proven not-loser... and around we go!


He's lost more games than he's won.

Making the playoffs in the NBA is hardly an accomplishment. Chicago Grizzlies.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> I'd rather it not be moved. If this is the signature thread about Paxson tenure as GM, this history belongs in it.
> 
> It developed as a natural part of the conversation.


Again, the mods will move what they feel they need to move. In the interim, feel free not to address topics you believe are not germane to your original post.

While I did speak with a non-GB poster about Curry, Crawford and the gang, I didn't want GB to thread-dump article after article onto the thread.

Thanks.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Mods, please move the Crawford posts (including my own) into its own thread.
> 
> While I did speak with a non-GB poster about Curry, Crawford and the gang, I didn't want GB to thread-dump article after article onto the thread.
> 
> Thanks.


Because it refuted your point? I don't know... I'm the non GB poster and I thought it was completely relevant.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

It was NOT a thread dump. 

It goes along with a careful examination of his record. It's a keeper. Just don't discuss them if you object to them,

Now let the mods make the call, because our continued banter _is_ OT for the thread.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I'm sick and tired of this mentality where Bears Weather = winning conditions, where diving into a stupid wall = grinder, where rebounds and a crappy offensive game is all you need to be a team leader!
> 
> Since when did Chicago turn into the home of the sports retarded.



I agree with this actually.


The problem we're having is in the analysis. Hard work and talent are not mutually exclusive. The truly great teams of course have both. A bunch of lazy talented players aren't going to win a championship, much as a bunch of hardworking 2nd tier talents won't. I can't believe we've argued about this for years.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> One of those guys, Jalen Rose, is one of the classier players in the NBA if you ever met him and was the best player (EFF) on a team that went to the NBA Finals. He's also been to the FInal Four on a good college team, if you are the type of person that matters for.
> 
> Another player (Crawford) is stuck on a lousy team but is more statistically productive than any of our guards and was beloved by the father of "the right way", Larry Brown, a coach that has actually accomplished things of note.
> 
> Curry was the leading scorer, #2 in MPG and top 3 in EFF and PER for a team that was the #3 team in the East. That was the last Bulls team that seemed like it could turn out to be a true contender. Balance at every position. Players of a proper size. Young and ready to grow. Of course, Paxson decided to go with undersized and jibby. Now we're ****ed.


This is duplicitous. You can't on the one hand be arguing "accomplished nothing of note" and then on the other hand be touting these marginal accomplishments as something that matters.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is duplicitous. You can't on the one hand be arguing "accomplished nothing of note" and then on the other hand be touting these marginal accomplishments as something that matters.


Leading a team to the NBA Finals is a marginal accomplishment?

LOL, given how Paxson was canonized around here for the last 5 years I find that statement laughable.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's lost more games than he's won.
> 
> Making the playoffs in the NBA is hardly an accomplishment. Chicago Grizzlies.


Well, you told me w/l was irrelevant, since the goal was to get a superstar... so I don't know why you're brining that up.


As for the "chicago grizzlies" remark, I find that similarly curious, as you've stated your displeasure with Paxson for not trading for Pau Gasol... who made the Memphis Grizzlies what they were.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Now let the mods make the call, because our continued banter _is_ OT for the thread.



Fair enough GB. 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

The GM you passionately and ardently supported and defended all these years is a loser.

I think he should resign rather than subject the good people of Chicago with more of his horrible basketball decisions.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Leading a team to the NBA Finals is a marginal accomplishment?
> 
> LOL, given how Paxson was canonized around here for the last 5 years I find that statement laughable.



I thought that you had noted repeated that you play to win the NBA championship.


Moreover, even if Rose had a slightly higher scoring average, I'd imagine most would say Reggie Miller was the team leader.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fair enough GB.
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
> 
> ...


I disagree.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> As for the "chicago grizzlies" remark, I find that similarly curious, as you've stated your displeasure with Paxson for not trading for Pau Gasol... who made the Memphis Grizzlies what they were.



If Gasol could be had for pennies, then yes. 

I was torn last season on the Deng for Gasol front.

I was upset to hear last season that Paxson was unwilling to give up any of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni or Deng for Gasol.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I thought that you had noted repeated that you play to win the NBA championship.



Winning the Eastern Conference is a notable accomplishment.






> Moreover, even if Rose had a slightly higher scoring average, I'd imagine most would say Reggie Miller was the team leader.


Rose had a higher EFF.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Rose had a higher EFF.


And that made him what would commonly be referred to as the "team leader"?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I don't know what's worse, posters like a certain few. 

Or the posters that can't stand them and attacks them while ignoring good posters actually talking about the topic (like I was).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Rose had a higher EFF.


The Wikipedia slant makes him sound like Crawford and Curry: A scorer and not much else.



> As a member of the Pacers, Rose became the first player in eight years other than Reggie Miller to lead the team in scoring in the 1999-2000 season when he averaged 18.2 points per game for the eventual Eastern Conference Champions. He helped lead them to the Eastern Conference Championship in 2000 (though Indiana would ultimately lose the NBA Finals to the Los Angeles Lakers in six games). Rose averaged 23 points per game in the six game Finals series, including a 32 point effort in a game five win.
> 
> Despite his successes in Indiana, he was never readily accepted. While always a high scorer, Rose logged a lot of DNPCD's by Coaches Larry Brown and Larry Bird. Rose also often spoke out about the fact he was being used as a backup 2 guard and small forward over his preference, which was point guard.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Has this thread really come to the point where we are debating the merits of Jalen Rose. 

Hey, remember, Jerry Krause's deal where he traded Ron Artest and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose and Travis Best because he thought Rose was a future All-Star. Man, that worked out well. 

Seriously, posters in this thread are pretending their arguments are Stretch Armstrong.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Bulls Acquire Rose, Best in Seven-Player Trade



> <table align="right" border="2" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="160"> <tbody><tr> <td>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I believe it has become time for the question of Paxson's resignation to become legit.

i dont think i can remember a GM who has done less with more....10 lotto pick at his disposal, some were scrubby, or accomplished nothing really (fizer, jay ) some were not(the 3C's).

a max contract to be bandied out

his lotto picks were a mixed bag too a number 3 pick who cant start, a number 2 you can also say is not a starter...but at least he is still quite young....passing over numerous players who were better talents and better fits in the process.

they won 30 games 5 years ago with an extremely young core ....they have avg. 38 since...with this season coming at 32 or 33...the max deal is now larry hughes.....the team now has to rebuild before the majorty has reached its prime, how sad is that

i honestly dont see how people defend the man so passionately.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Da Grinch said:


> I believe it has become time for the question of Paxson's resignation to become legit.
> 
> i dont think i can remember a GM who has done less with more....10 lotto pick at his disposal, some were scrubby, or accomplished nothing really (fizer, jay ) some were not(the 3C's).
> 
> ...


I could be wrong but I don't even think anyone is defending him "passionately"


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> I believe it has become time for the question of Paxson's resignation to become legit.
> 
> i dont think i can remember a GM who has done less with more....10 lotto pick at his disposal, some were scrubby, or accomplished nothing really (fizer, jay ) some were not(the 3C's).
> 
> ...


i think you're seeing more reaction to how the argument was presented, than the merits themselves.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> i think you're seeing more reaction to how the argument was presented, than the merits themselves.


So my arguments have merit?

That's great news.

I'm never going to win any points for presentation (sugar-coating).

But as long as even people like you are not challenging the merits, I'm happy.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> I believe it has become time for the question of Paxson's resignation to become legit.
> 
> i dont think i can remember a GM who has done less with more....10 lotto pick at his disposal, some were scrubby, or accomplished nothing really (fizer, jay ) some were not(the 3C's).
> 
> ...


Ugh.

Paxson has had six lotto picks. #7-Kirk Hinrich in '03. #3-Ben Gordon and #7-Luol Deng in '04. #2-Thomas in '06, #9-Noah in '07. Say what you will, but outside of two or three guys who fell a decent number of spots after the Bulls drafted, there isn't a guy who you can say is what would have gotten this team over the hump. 

A max contract which he promptly signed the 4-time DPOY of the year whith. 

So his teams won 30 games (with Krause's players mostly), 47 games, 41 games, 49 games, and 32 games. Ben Wallace and Larry Hughes are about equal. 

And the team doesn't need to rebuild, they need to consolidate. Paxson hasn't had the opportunity to get a star. 

Again, he's made his mistakes...

Wallace over Chandler
Tyrus over Roy or Aldridge

But he took a team that hadn't made the playoffs in five years and turned them into a team that made 3 straight playoff appearances and was picked by most people who know and watch more basketball than any of us to make at the very least the ECF. 

The same team won 49 games and was a couple of bad shooting games away from potentially making the ECF. 

Listen, if Paxson had acquired cap-killing contracts or drafted complete busts then I'd be all for firing him. The players didn't perform this year. 

And lastly, what would you have liked him to say...

"Well we won 49 games last year and with a little luck probably beat Detroit and maybe Cleveland, and I added a decent back-up big who is a rookie. Yep, we are definitely going to lose 50 games this year. I should blow up the team."

And I don't think anybody here would be defending Paxson as passionately if certain posters didn't over-react and call him a terrible GM. He's an average GM. I'd say Danny Ferry is a worse GM, but of course he's won a Eastern Conf. Championship. If Paxson had won the lottery in '03, and gotten LeBron we probably would've won a championship too.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> So my arguments have merit?
> 
> That's great news.
> 
> ...


Well, I said early in the discussion that John Paxson got a B- from me, not great, not terrible... so clearly there's a reason I don't think he's an A+ GM (Tyson Chandler being an obvious example). I think anybody having a reasonable discussion of Paxson's tenure would admit to some good AND some bad... reasonable being the operative phrase.

also... there's at least some merit to nearly every argument, so don't let it get to your head k4e... :cheers:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> So my arguments have merit?


The question in the thread title has merit. It should always be asked after a team fails to meet expectations.

But in this case we had lots of 'noise'. The Kobe thing, the Skiles thing, the (shudder) Boylan thing.

I say no, he shouldn't resign. We have talent, it just didn't mix well this season. I will re-judge at the halfway point next season after he's hired a coach and had a chance to make some more moves.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I'd say Danny Ferry is a worse GM, but of course he's won a Eastern Conf. Championship. If Paxson had won the lottery in '03, and gotten LeBron we probably would've won a championship too.


Thumbs up.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I don't know what's worse, posters like a certain few.
> 
> Or the posters that can't stand them and attacks them while ignoring good posters actually talking about the topic (like I was).


I havent ignored you :biggrin:

Can we just end this thread, Pax sucks its a fact and we should just end it like that.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> If Paxson had won the lottery in '03, and gotten LeBron we probably would've won a championship too.


I think most posters realize this is conjecture, of course. 

If Paxson had won the lotto he probably would have selected Darko Milicic. He was desperate for a shooting guard.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

thebizkit69u said:


> I havent ignored you :biggrin:
> 
> Can we just end this thread, Pax sucks its a fact and we should just end it like that.


I think this will help:


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I think this will help:


Not if you picture Joakim Noahs head on that torso!


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

thebizkit69u said:


> Not if you picture Joakim Noahs head on that torso!


oh dude :no:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Ugh.
> 
> Paxson has had six lotto picks. #7-Kirk Hinrich in '03. #3-Ben Gordon and #7-Luol Deng in '04. #2-Thomas in '06, #9-Noah in '07. Say what you will, but outside of two or three guys who fell a decent number of spots after the Bulls drafted, there isn't a guy who you can say is what would have gotten this team over the hump.


he also had thabo and inherited , chandler , jay, eddy, crawford and fizer ....and ummm...you dont think brandon roy LMA, rudy gay, andre iguodala ,devin harris al jefferson or josh smith, could have really helped this team? 

also in later picks there have been josh howard, kevin martin, there have been serious chances through the draft that weren't taken.



> A max contract which he promptly signed the 4-time DPOY of the year whith.


How good was that player for the bulls ?

not very , what he did for the pistons doesn't matter.



> So his teams won 30 games (with Krause's players mostly), 47 games, 41 games, 49 games, and 32 games. Ben Wallace and Larry Hughes are about equal.
> 
> And the team doesn't need to rebuild, they need to consolidate. Paxson hasn't had the opportunity to get a star.
> 
> ...



actually his 1st full year they went down from 30 to 23, not helped by him spending his MLE on the nostagic but non-helpful pippen and kendall gill while the guys he sent away hoiberg and hassell went to minny and had far better seasons...and pax has had 5 years to say he hasn't had the oppurtunity is basically saying he sucks because if you dont have an opportunity in 5 years you aren't very good , because you aren't making opportunities , in the time he has been GM plenty of stars have been dealt Baron davis, AI, Rasheed wallace , kevin garnett , ray allen joe johnson , shaq, pau gasol tracy mcgrady ...Paxson just didn't get any of them.

and the fact that hughes and wallace equal isn't a comforting statement since most cav fans would have happily drove hughes to the airport to get him off their team....kind of how bulls fans felt about big ben at the end...it was an equal swap but the money should never have been saved to spend on either of these guys , you can litterally get better players with the MLE in most years....but Pax saved for 3 years and sent players away who could have been useful and better than both of them , certainly with more trade value ...for this .




> But he took a team that hadn't made the playoffs in five years and turned them into a team that made 3 straight playoff appearances and was picked by most people who know and watch more basketball than any of us to make at the very least the ECF.
> 
> The same team won 49 games and was a couple of bad shooting games away from potentially making the ECF.
> 
> ...


the moment Pax took over he thought they were a playoff team and wanted some vets who had won before to help with the process, so him taking a team already thought was a playoff team the next season untouched 2 years after the fact is kind of weak ...he didn't by his own thinking create a playoff team he was just piggybacking on some1 else's team building.

unlike most teams when GM's take over the cupboard is bare , he took over one considered up and coming teams and after a bad 1st month gutted them , taking away their leadership (cartwright) star player and a guy who went on to avg. 16 and 10 for the rest of the season in raptorville , what they got back didn't match what they gave up...and the rest of the season showed that as they lost 59 games.

he gave away talent because he thought he could build a winner....and that team didn't win , he has a losing record as a GM , in fact if he were even able to get to is avg. record as a GM of the bulls 38-44 the team would be in the playoffs right now , it doesn't take much in the east .

he has had the 2nd pick and 3rd picks in drafts where guys who look to be perenial all stars were taken and left them for others to take, he hasn't drafted an all star yet has had 6 lotto picks, it looks like he wont ever resign gordon at this point and if that doesn't say it was a bad selection i dont know what does...

i dont deal in what ifs i deal in what happened and by that rationale , Pax has not been a good GM, he has in his tenure had really had alot , (inherited a talented core , has had max cap space and numerous lottery draft picks when star players were available) and his team is 32 and 49 right now, if he had recieved few or fewer things that make teams winners i could see things differently but that isn't the case....he has squandered alot, and made alot of bad decisions he went for ready made players where better talent were available and he's gone for potential picks when clearly better more polished talents were available and outside of the kirk pick in which his hand was forced due to Jay's accident there really hasn't been one pick where you can say he's made the right call yet, there is just too much wrong here to be able realistically call him a good GM.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> you dont think brandon roy LMA, rudy gay, andre iguodala ,devin harris al jefferson or josh smith, could have really helped this team?
> 
> also in later picks there have been josh howard, kevin martin, there have been serious chances through the draft that weren't taken.
> 
> ...



You don't deal in "what ifs"? Man, I wish I would have known that before I read the first two chapters of your post.

unfortunately, you do deal in what ifs... as in, what if we would have acquired any of the players you mentioned. Whether or not we'd be better, depending on who we would have given up, is pure speculation. "What if" we drafted Igoudala or Devin Harris... you really think we'd be that significantly better? What if we would have given away the kitchen sink for Pau Gasol? All speculation.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Man, I wish I would have known that before I read the first two chapters of your post.


Thats funny.

But seriously its not about second guessing or saying something after the fact, the bottom line is that many fans and scouts had some of the players that Pax skipped on higher than the ones hes drafted. 

No one had a doubt that Lamarcus Aldrige was the better player.
People had Brandon Roy very high.
Rudy Gay had the most potential out of everyone in the draft and came much more skilled than TT. 

Pax is just a crappy evaluator of talent.


----------



## JohnnieFinn (Apr 9, 2008)

Heh heh heh what a silly board.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> You don't deal in "what ifs"? Man, I wish I would have known that before I read the first two chapters of your post.
> 
> unfortunately, you do deal in what ifs... as in, what if we would have acquired any of the players you mentioned. Whether or not we'd be better, depending on who we would have given up, is pure speculation. "What if" we drafted Igoudala or Devin Harris... you really think we'd be that significantly better? What if we would have given away the kitchen sink for Pau Gasol? All speculation.




actually it was a response to t.shock's statement that there was no one paxson could have drafted that could have gotten the bulls over the hump...i disagreed and named names its not really speculation...i named universally considered better players.

feel free to re-read both my post and the one i responded to and see if you feel the same way that you responded in your post that i am respnng to now.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> actually it was a response to t.shock's statement that there was no one paxson could have drafted that could have gotten the bulls over the hump...i disagreed and named names its not really speculation...i named universally considered better players.
> 
> feel free to re-read both my post and the one i responded to and see if you feel the same way that you responded in your post that i am respnng to now.


I guess my (very narrow) point, was that it is easy to say that guys like Igoudala, Harris, Martin, Aldridge etc.... would have made us substantially better, but you have to realize that they would be brought up in a different system... I'm not sure how Devin Harris would have developed backing up Kirk Hinrich... I'm not sure Aldridge wouldn't have been buried behind Ben Wallace's entitlement minutes and still be waiting to prove himself...

Similarly, giving up the kitchen sink for a superstar could have made us what the Memphis Grizzlies were for most of the year... Pau Gasol and a bunch of unproven guys backed up by questionable depth...

So yeah, its all a big "what if".


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

no one can say Pax has failed on the draft side of his job NO ONE!if your POV is that he could have done better then yeah in hindsight maybe he could have.the rest of his duty's however is what has made him a POS GM!

if you were to take away the two insanely luckily 1st rd picks in the EC trade (outside of the BW trade)not a single signing nor trade has helped us.ill even go as far to say they all have hurt us in one way or another.

looking at his body of work i cant be leave he still has a job and there are fans who still say he is helping the team.

Looking at his body of work what is in there that says he can clean up this mess?
its fairly clear that outside of 2 players no one in this draft is a "Star"type of player,and only maybe 3-4 others "could" be "good-all star" types,so outside of another luckily flop he wont get much help from the draft this year and that only leaves trades,FA's and improvement from the players on the roster today to turn things around.

yet TRADES and FA SIGNINGS are his worse traits by far because he hasn't been able to get past overvaluing his players,being cap flexible,always taken the wait and see till the last min approach and incoming players must be JIB approved or they aren't good enough for his view of the team.

now if he could change his POV on the above area's and learn that sometimes a FAIR deal is the BEST deal instead of demanding to make either of the men at the table look silly then yeah theres hope,but in 5 years he's never once changed his approach to any part of his job,so i don't hold any hope of some switch flipping inside this guys head this off season.. 

EDIT:Noch was a good signing and did alot of good for the team.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

This is the age of no one taking responsibility for their actions. 

So, I guess no one wanting to blame Paxson is right..........

Let's blame Global Warming....Maybe he had a rough childhood and never got used to picking the best players..........maybe....maybe....

Paxson has not succeeded in his own goals.

His team is on the verge of imploding big time. 

Paxson was all about discipline and structure..................FAILURE

The coaching staff was walked all over this year.

Structure - I don't see it.

The players are also to blame and should be ashamed of their results.

I am officially on the Ben Gordon is an ungrateful selfish NBA player bandwagon.

If you wanna claim you are worth more, then prodcue from day one.......not occassionally.

Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, Chris Duhon, Ben Wallace...............Damn everyone on this team has had an incident this season and showed a problem with the NBA players of today.

That being said, this can be salvaged with the right changes. Can Paxson make the right changes????????? Let's ope so, cause he's obviously got picture of JR and Krause to still have the faith he says put in him.

This seasons offical tag should've been........

The Chicago Bulls - A team you can feel embarrassed of.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

chifaninca said:


> This is the age of no one taking responsibility for their actions.
> 
> So, I guess no one wanting to blame Paxson is right..........
> 
> ...


Hey don't bring Global Warming into this debate, he's not even here to defend himself.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I guess my (very narrow) point, was that it is easy to say that guys like Igoudala, Harris, Martin, Aldridge etc.... would have made us substantially better, but you have to realize that they would be brought up in a different system... I'm not sure how Devin Harris would have developed backing up Kirk Hinrich... I'm not sure Aldridge wouldn't have been buried behind Ben Wallace's entitlement minutes and still be waiting to prove himself...
> 
> Similarly, giving up the kitchen sink for a superstar could have made us what the Memphis Grizzlies were for most of the year... Pau Gasol and a bunch of unproven guys backed up by questionable depth...
> 
> So yeah, its all a big "what if".


is it really?

devin harris wasn't a starter until his 3rd season so i dont know why couldn't have backed up kirk since he backed up jason terry and did just fine...also by any statistical measure or just by watching them play of point guard play harris is a better point guard than kirk as far as setting up teammates and passing etc...kirk would have been moved to 2 guard long ago...where he belongs.

also aldridge wasn't a starter last season , zach randolph started at the 4 ...and zach avg. 37 min. a game that season , big ben avg.32 last season , logically LMA would have gotten more of a chance in chicago off of that alone....that and wallace is a center...the other big, PJ only avg. 20 minutes games ....wallace entitlement minutes or not aldridge i have to think would have been just fine.

you points dont seem to be based in any kind of logical reason other than the system they were in and ...skiles runs a pg based system in which the guards dominate the ball...and true low post bigs are doomed to mediocrity and maginalization...LMA is as much a face up player as anything he would have excelled under skiles because of the pick and pop game skiles loves to run so much, 

harris is a point guard and skiles for all his faults is excellent with guard development and if a face up big like othella harrington can do well under skiles than aldridge should dominate.

also some stars were given up for cap space(ending deals) and or young unproven talent...baron davis was dealt for an aging dale davis and speedy claxton...the grizz didn't want what the bulls were offering they wanted cap space and some young talent ...Pax was unwilling to to send PJ and a couple of youngins so he didn't get him...heck he could have even have done it this year and pulled a KVH like dallas did in the kidd/harris deal...he didn't make his opportunities and now we as fans have to pay for it.


----------

