# Playing it safe is for cowards!!!



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

I'm sick and tired of Pax "playing it safe". At some point, if he wants to win a title, he's gonna have to take a chance. Like when Krause traded Oakley, or when he drafted Kukoc, or when he signed Rodman, etc... Krause took a LOT of chances that didn't work out, but the ones that did helped the Bulls win championships.

Pax is so sensitive about making a bad move that he doesn't make any move. And when you're talking about taking Roy with the 2nd pick, you're basically saying you're scared.

Look at the teams in the Finals. When Don Nelson drafted Nowitzki and declared that "one day Nowitzki will be the best player in the NBA!", that took kohones!!!! He was ridiculed in Dirk's first few seasons, but look at what Dirk has done overall!!!

And Miami took a chance on Wade that Pax was afraid (there goes that word again  ) to take. What if Pax had had the guts to trade Donyell & the 7th pick for Wade?????? He took a chance on Ben Gordon and now Gordon trade rumors are running rampant, but all of his "safe" choices seem to be untouchable. 

Most title contending teams took a chance that paid off(SA,Miami,Det). Bottom line is that playing it safe will minimize the busts, but it will also limit how many true "star quality" players you end up with. 

What ever happened to *"No Guts, No Glory"*

:whoknows:


I would LOVE to play Pax in poker!!!!


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

im glad that paxson is playing it safe. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I dont think Miami gambled on Wade. And if Pax was thinking of trading up for him, it reinforces that.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I agree with the threadstarter....

Sometimes when u play it safe, you lose out BIG time

EX. Milwaukee drafting Nowtitski then trading him for Robert Traylor, Krause trading Polynice for Pippen ETC.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

And sometimes when you gamble, you lose out BIG BIG time.

It depends...And its not the same to "gamble" with the #2 pick than with a middle first rounder or a second rounder. Thats not gambling exactly. You wont lose your job if your late first rounder is a bust.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Sometimes when u play it safe, you lose out BIG time


More often times you lose out big when you gamble. That's a given though. 

See Darko over Melo, Bosh and Wade. 
See trading Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler, sipping on some Garnett hopes.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Regardless, I don't think it's a bad idea to swing for the fences, it has just has to be calculated. 

I don't know what would be considered taking a chance in this years draft at the number 2 pick. There are about 5 or 6 guys in the pool that nobody would be surprised if we picked (Bargnani, Morrison, Gay, Aldridge, Thomas). Taking anyone outside of those 5 would be more stupid than brave. 

I think we should swing for the fences with 16th though. I like the Sene kid that rlucas has been raving about for awhile.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I agree with the threadstarter....
> 
> Sometimes when u play it safe, you lose out BIG time
> 
> EX. Milwaukee drafting Nowtitski then trading him for Robert Traylor, Krause trading Polynice for Pippen ETC.


Yeah, drafting Elton Brand over less safe prospects like Steve Francis, Lamar Odom, and Jonathan Bender was really, really stupid.

But trading Brand for Chandler, yeah, that was like SOOOOO risky, wow.



Yes, sometimes when you play it safe, you miss the best player, but guess what: sometimes when you take a risk, you get egg in your face.

So, in conclusion, I don't want Paxson to "play it safe" or to "take a risk." I want him to draft the player who ends up at least the second best player in the draft.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I think it's OK to play it somewhat safe with the #2 and try and hit a grand slam at 16 . . . However, let's be safe but be SMART at #2. Unless Pax is seriously going to trade BG, we need to get a big at #2 and that's that. I think grabbing Aldridge is doing both really, as he has the potential to really be a great player and makes the most sense to alot of people. Now at #16 we could go in so many different directions that I think we should look to take more of a gamble there . . . The Sene kid, a Brewer, a Carney, Sergio, perhaps taking a really huge gameble and stashing Splitter for a year or two?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think we should swing for the fences with 16th though. I like the Sene kid that rlucas has been raving about for awhile.


I definitely agree with this, and Sene seems to be living up to the hype in workouts so far.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

For yall who say Paxson should take risks how good do u think Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat would be without Shaq i think the real reason why the Heat is in the Finals now is because of Shaq and the NBA being FIXED. Without Shaq the Heat barely past .500. And dont say Shaq was a risk. How else do u expect a team that has one of the best centers in all NBA to be. I mean the NBA is low of the center position.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I hate to break this to you guys, but Paxson has taken his share of risks...

How about trading away your leading scorer three years in a row?

How about dealing a future first round pick to secure a guy like Luol Deng?


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

Dornado said:


> I hate to break this to you guys, but Paxson has taken his share of risks...
> 
> How about trading away your leading scorer three years in a row?
> 
> How about dealing a future first round pick to secure a guy like Luol Deng?


Totally agree. also whats te point of this thread who do you want Bulls4Life....


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

Dornado said:


> I hate to break this to you guys, but Paxson has taken his share of risks...
> 
> How about trading away your leading scorer three years in a row?
> 
> How about dealing a future first round pick to secure a guy like Luol Deng?


and look how all those 3 highest scorer are doing now on the same team in New York. Over paid and not even averaging the same points.

Jamal Craford shooting guard this year 14 points per game
Ben Gordon shooting guard this year 16 points per game

Jalen Rose small forward 12 points per game
Luol Deng small forward 14 points per game

i cant compare Eddy Curry with someone because we do not have a true center yet. 

did these 3 leading scorers of our get their team to the playoffs? No 

Also Luol Deng is a good player y are yall hatin on him so much he just got off of surgery. Also if yall say that this is an excuse then Dwayne doesnt play well is chicago is also an excuse.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Dornado said:


> I hate to break this to you guys, but Paxson has taken his share of risks...
> How about trading away your leading scorer three years in a row?
> How about dealing a future first round pick to secure a guy like Luol Deng?


How about drafting Gordon with the #3 pick when the Bulls already had Crawford and Hinrich?

No, the record doesn't support the idea that Paxson is afraid of taking chances or thinking outside the box in the draft.

The problem in this draft is that there is a consensus estimate of the best 6 players in the draft, but no consensus about how they should be ranked. The real risk at the top of the draft is that only one or two (or maybe none) of the six will prove to be future all-stars. So the safe play would be to trade the pick away.

The gutsy play would be to draft Splitter at the #16 spot. The Bulls can afford to wait a year or two for him to arrive.


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

I thought Splitter pulled out of this year's draft, McBulls.

Could we still draft him, if that's the case, and wait until next year?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The problem in this draft is that there is a consensus estimate of the best 6 players in the draft, but no consensus about how they should be ranked. The real risk at the top of the draft is that only one or two (or maybe none) of the six will prove to be future all-stars. So the safe play would be to trade the pick away.


Well stated. :greatjob:


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

McBulls said:


> How about drafting Gordon with the #3 pick when the Bulls already had Crawford and Hinrich?


who would u have suggested no one after Dwight Howard and Emeka Okafor were taller then 6'10 except David Harrison and everyone else taller are now out of the league or still bench warmers. and plus we had Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler we didnt need anymore big man and he took Luol Deng. we really did not lack in any position except for small forward and he fixed that problem by getting Luol Deng and Nocioni. wut did him picking Gordon with the #3 pick have to do with anything he could have used him in a 3 man rotation. but Ben Gordon is much better than Jamal Crawford anyway so im glad he got rid of Jamal Crawford.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

taurus515th said:


> who would u have suggested no one after Dwight Howard and Emeka Okafor were taller then 6'10 except David Harrison and everyone else taller are now out of the league or still bench warmers. and plus we had Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler we didnt need anymore big man and he took Luol Deng. we really did not lack in any position except for small forward and he fixed that problem by getting Luol Deng and Nocioni. wut did him picking Gordon with the #3 pick have to do with anything he could have used him in a 3 man rotation. but Ben Gordon is much better than Jamal Crawford anyway so im glad he got rid of Jamal Crawford.


The conservative play would have been to draft Deng, since the Bulls needed a small forward at the time. They ended up getting him anyway; but drafting Ben was certainly not a conservative move.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> How about drafting Gordon with the #3 pick when the Bulls already had Crawford and Hinrich?


How about signing Nocioni? Undersized, wild, undisciplined. Pax signed him to a 3-year deal. A no-brainer, you say? Well, 29 teams didn't do it.

Oh yeah, signing Chandler to a 6-year, $60MM deal was a big bet on potential that has been severely criticized on this board.

I wouldn't view Roy as being a "scared" pick. He's a very good prospect who appears to fit the Bulls' identity (work hard, team play, defense-oriented). Oh yeah, he also fills a real need. If Paxson drafts Roy, I won't hold it against him just because Roy's vertical doesn't jump off the charts.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

McBulls said:


> The conservative play would have been to draft Deng, since the Bulls needed a small forward at the time. They ended up getting him anyway; but drafting Ben was certainly not a conservative move.


i really think he went with the best player available. but wuts wrong the Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Jamal Crawford rotation tho.

people do not complain about the Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Chris Duhon rotation except for the height and we are winning with the rotation.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

dogra said:


> I thought Splitter pulled out of this year's draft, McBulls.
> 
> Could we still draft him, if that's the case, and wait until next year?


The rules on this are not clear to me when it comes to international players. In any case I hadn't heard he opted out of the draft. San Antonio has used this technique to acquire several good players. Maybe it's not possible anymore.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

i heard a rumor that he is still thinking about 

here is the link http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Bulls4Life said:


> I'm sick and tired of Pax "playing it safe". At some point, if he wants to win a title, he's gonna have to take a chance. Like when Krause traded Oakley, or when he drafted Kukoc, or when he signed Rodman, etc... Krause took a LOT of chances that didn't work out, but the ones that did helped the Bulls win championships.
> 
> Pax is so sensitive about making a bad move that he doesn't make any move. And when you're talking about taking Roy with the 2nd pick, you're basically saying you're scared.
> 
> ...



Good post, but your not going to be too popular with this opinion in this land. Way too much Kool Aid around here mate.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> How about drafting Gordon with the #3 pick when the Bulls already had Crawford and Hinrich?
> 
> No, the record doesn't support the idea that Paxson is afraid of taking chances or thinking outside the box in the draft.
> 
> ...


Splitter == 2008


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Good post, but your not going to be too popular with this opinion in this land. Way too much Kool Aid around here mate.


I'm not sure why thinking that it might be OK to draft Roy with the #2 pick is equivalent to mindless sycophancy. 

If additional help at the 3-4 spot is what is needed, it's good to remember that Al Harrington is an unrestricted free agent who the Bulls could readily sign. If they do intend to sign Harrington, why would they ever consider drafting Thomas, Gay or Morrison? Harrington is, and very well might always be better than any of them. Even Bargnani might be a little redundant on a team that had Deng, Harrington and Nocioni.

On the other hand, Roy would not be redundant, and would fill a real need. Aldridge would also not be redundant, but it seems likely that he will be a Raptor.

Add to that the fact that some consider Roy to be the BPA at this time, picking him at the #2 spot seems more sensible than cowardly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

taurus515th said:


> i heard a rumor that he is still thinking about
> 
> here is the link http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


One rumor is Brendan Hayward is available. I'd rather have him than ANY of the FAs everyone talks about.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I'm not sure why thinking that it might be OK to draft Roy with the #2 pick is equivalent to mindless sycophancy.
> 
> If additional help at the 3-4 spot is what is needed, it's good to remember that Al Harrington is an unrestricted free agent who the Bulls could readily sign. If they do intend to sign Harrington, why would they ever consider drafting Thomas, Gay or Morrison? Harrington is, and very well might always be better than any of them. Even Bargnani might be a little redundant on a team that had Deng, Harrington and Nocioni.
> 
> ...


:greatjob:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

McBulls said:


> I'm not sure why thinking that it might be OK to draft Roy with the #2 pick is equivalent to mindless sycophancy.
> 
> If additional help at the 3-4 spot is what is needed, it's good to remember that Al Harrington is an unrestricted free agent who the Bulls could readily sign. If they do intend to sign Harrington, why would they ever consider drafting Thomas, Gay or Morrison? Harrington is, and very well might always be better than any of them. Even Bargnani might be a little redundant on a team that had Deng, Harrington and Nocioni.
> 
> ...



repped for this.

i think taking Roy at #2 would take guts, actually. 

if it's considered "safe" because it fills a need Pax has been talking about for like, TWO YEARS, i think that definition of "safe" is different than mine. it would be a smart pick, and one that would be unexpected, considering all the talk of taking a big there.

if he takes Roy at #2 and gets a veteran big in FA and a BIG at 16, well, he's addressed several real needs without breaking up the core. and to that i would say "well done!"


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Good post, but your not going to be too popular with this opinion in this land. Way too much Kool Aid around here mate.


Kool Aid implies blind devotion to the "leader" and accepting everything as being good sans critical thought. There is certainly not "way too much" of that around here. What there is "around here" is actual analysis of the situation, which in the current climate of the team often comes down on the positive side. 

Furthermore, I love this board but it is by far the most negative against the team and management that I've found anywhere on the internet. 

Let me give you an example and relate it specifically to the initiating post, because while I do believe Paxson is conservative, I don't believe he won't take chances. He has taken his share of chances to get his team to this point.



> I'm sick and tired of Pax "playing it safe". At some point, if he wants to win a title, he's gonna have to take a chance.


Just a couple of weeks ago, Paxson acknowledged this very thing as it relates to player types. I.e., signing a Rasheed Wallace to cap off a title run. But Paxson, by his own words, has been reluctant to do so to date due to the youth and inexperience of the team. I expect this to continue until he thinks he has a contender in place that just needs a push to get over the top. 



> Like when Krause traded Oakley, or when he drafted Kukoc, or when he signed Rodman, etc... Krause took a LOT of chances that didn't work out, but the ones that did helped the Bulls win championships.


When Krause signed Rodman, he already had a championship caliber core in place with strong veteran personalities in Jordan and Pippen. The Kukoc pick was not risky, it was innovative. It was the 29th pick in the draft. Its not like Krausy was passing up lottery picks to take the guy.

Paxson blew up a 30 win team that some believed could reach the playoffs after only 16 games. Starting over from scratch after 16 games is a risk. Its a huge risk. 

Paxson then traded the team's leading scorer in Crawford for nothing more than capspace based on the risk he'd get better bang for that buck down the road. That would be this summer. 

I'm leaving Curry out of it, because I don't believe it was a "risk" based issue. He wanted Curry, much to his discredit, and traded him for other reasons. Don't want to rehash that.



> Pax is so sensitive about making a bad move that he doesn't make any move.


He's made tons of moves in three years and, save 1 player, has completely overturned the roster. What are you talking about? 

He traded a future pick on faith and walked away with Deng. Signing Chandler to a $60 million dollar deal was a risk based on potential rather than actual production. Quite arguably a poor risk that he took - and perhaps a costly one. 

Gordon was a risk as well. Not because of Crawford, but because of Iggy and Deng who obviously were better traditional fits for "team needs" at the time. 



> And when you're talking about taking Roy with the 2nd pick, you're basically saying you're scared.


As I've argued in great detail in other threads and won't re-type all of that here, the taking of Roy is almost the riskiest thing Paxson can do with the #2 pick. He adds a 4th guard to a pre-existing and quite successful 3 guard rotation. He doesn't fit a critical need, and there are 3 diverse big men, at least two of which will be available, at the top of the draft. That leaves big men scraps at the #16 pick and the unknown of free agency to fill the team's real need. 

Looking at Roy in a vaccuum, like if you were starting a team from scratch, he is probably the safe pick. Looking at Roy in the context of the Bulls drafting him and incorporating him into the current roster is a significant risk, and a senseless one if you ask me.



> Look at the teams in the Finals. When Don Nelson drafted Nowitzki and declared that "one day Nowitzki will be the best player in the NBA!", that took kohones!!!! He was ridiculed in Dirk's first few seasons, but look at what Dirk has done overall!!!


That was a good risk for them to take, no argument. But lets not look at an irrelevent example pre-dating Paxson's draft choices. Lets consider his actual high draft selections.

Hinrich. What risky pick should he have made that he didn't make. And I'm not talking about Wade. That stuff is all hinsight. I'm talking about players available when Chicago picked. Name the risk picks Paxson could have, and should have taken.

Now do it with Gordon.

Now do it with Deng. 



> And Miami took a chance on Wade that Pax was afraid (there goes that word again ) to take. What if Pax had had the guts to trade Donyell & the 7th pick for Wade??????


This may or may not be true. I've seen mixed reports on this and whether or not Paxson simply rejected this offer. In any event, the conventional wisdom at the time (published anyway) was that Wade would probably be on the board for Chicago and no one thought he'd become what he is. Wade and Hinrich were Chicago's two guys. Chicago like them both. 

Hindsight should he have done it in the event the rumor is true? Of course. But on draft day this was not considered a risk. 



> He took a chance on Ben Gordon and now Gordon trade rumors are running rampant, but all of his "safe" choices seem to be untouchable.


Has Gordon been traded? Anyway, that issue is about fit, not risk. What "safe" choices are you referring to? Deng? Nocioni? Hinrich? Are you saying you want them traded? 



> Most title contending teams took a chance that paid off(SA,Miami,Det). Bottom line is that playing it safe will minimize the busts, but it will also limit how many true "star quality" players you end up with.


What risks did San Antonio take? Drafting well to get Parker and Ginobli aren't risks. Those players were on the board in the late first round and late second round respectively, and Buford drafted them. Parker was hailed as a late first round pick and thats where he went. The rest of that team is as safe as you can get and is built around one of the greates "no brainer" draft picks of all time. 

See, rlucas? That isn't Kool Aid, its a disagreement over perception based on an actual factual analysis.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> One rumor is Brendan Hayward is available. I'd rather have him than ANY of the FAs everyone talks about.


He recently signed an extension for something like 5 years, $25M. That's a bargain. He and Tyson would need to kiss and make up though, as they've hated each other since they came into the league in 2001. Since we also have cap space, we could easily absorb his salary too. Something like Sweetney + future protected pick for Haywood.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Brendan Haywood?!!?

you can't be serious LOL


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron, you are my hero.





(you do have a typo though, where you meant to say Krause, not Paxson, signed Rodman...)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Brendan Haywood?!!?
> 
> you can't be serious LOL


He's a legit 7 footer who plays solid D, and is decent enough an offensive player that we're not playing 4 on 5 (like with Chandler out there).

He's only 26, too.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> He's a legit 7 footer who plays solid D, and is decent enough an offensive player that we're not playing 4 on 5 (like with Chandler out there).
> 
> He's only 26, too.


Haywood certainly plays well against the Bulls. But my friends in Washington complain that he doesn't show up a lot of the time. That can be very distracting.

There's a reason why he's being made available; and it's not because the Wizards are overstocked with big men.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Haywood certainly plays well against the Bulls. But my friends in Washington complain that he doesn't show up a lot of the time. That can be very distracting.
> 
> There's a reason why he's being made available; and it's not because the Wizards are overstocked with big men.


He'd actually start for us. He was pretty good two seasons ago.

Or he'd be a good backup for us if we got another big.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I think most folks here actually want Pax to swing for the fences - I know that I do. I think part of the problem is that the initial post had some really poor examples of risk-taking. The Spurs aren't the Spurs without Duncan - one of the least risky picks in the last 10 drafts. Wade was hardly a "risky" pick. Ron Cey and McBulls have done a far better job than I could of stating that there is a difference between a risky move and simply a smart one.

My personal wish is that Pax play it safe with one pick and swing away with the other one. To me, the safe pick at #2 is Bargnani or Aldridge. The riskier pick would be Roy, Thomas or Gay. At 16, the safe pick would be Brewer or Hilton Armstrong (for example) the riskier pick is Sene or another player who maybe isn't so regarded or thought to be picked too high for that spot. I'd also be all for Pax acquiring a mid to late second rounder (for future considerations) and shooting it on a foreign prospect - especially Aleksandrov if he happens to somehow stay in the draft. Low risk, high reward.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron, that's a pretty good analysis, but a few beefs:

1. How can you categorize the Curry trade as being anything BUT severe, even pathological risk aversion? 

2. Given what I think I know about Pax's worldview -- the AAU circuit = bad, HS players going to the NBA = bad, scouting around the world = practically unnecessary -- I would say that minimizing risk has been one of the main goals of his drafting. Maybe even THE goal, given what Chandler and Curry represented. 

It's the Malcolm Gladwell school of building an NBA team: let Coach K and Coach Calhoun and Coach Williams do the heavy lifting. Yeah, Gordon may have thrown a girl down a staircase, and yeah, Deng might have only been at Duke a year, but Paxson's three centerpiece draft picks have been guys from blue-chip programs with blue-chip resumes and (very importantly) the unreserved imprimatur of their Hall-of-Fame college coaches (a noteworthy distinction in the case of Iguodala in 2004). 

There's nothing wrong with that -- Gladwell used it to show how a moron could do a better job of running a team than Isiah Thomas and other so-called experts have. But Gladwell acknowledges that few NBA teams, if any, have won a title without deviating from and expanding upon that model. 

You may consider Roy to be a risky pick. I strongly doubt Paxson does, given his track record. I think of the players we are likely to take at 2, Bargnani represents the biggest risk to Paxson and Thomas is probably riskier than we're all assuming. He would probably be most comfortable with Roy and (ugh) Aldridge.

3. re Paxson's blowing up of teams and roster turnover -- I don't think this has as much to do with his tolerance for risk as it indicates A. that the Chairman loves to save money and B. that the Bulls' fan base was genuinely unraveling at the start of the Paxson administration. It'd be risky for me to jump out of my office window right now. But it'd be self-preservation to jump out of the same window if the building was on fire.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Good post, but your not going to be too popular with this opinion in this land. Way too much Kool Aid around here mate.


rlucas, you're a very good poster from what I've seen over the years, but I'm disappointed that you'd simply dismiss opposing opinions as being "Kool-aid-based" rather than defending a position.

Weak stuff.

Any generalized characterization of the opinions on this board is bound to be inaccurate, unless you choose the word "diverse." It's a key reason why I keep coming back from time to time.

Yeah, I like what Paxson has done and I'm a Skiles fan too. This tandem has brought the team I love back to respectability, from an extended period of gross embarrassment, and done it fairly quickly. They've made sound decisions that have brought us Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Duhon, Songaila, the #2 pick this season and almost certainly the Knicks top pick next year. Importantly (to me, at least), they've given the Bulls an identity...lots of NBA teams, even some playoff teams, don't have this. They haven't made an idiotic move I've seen.

I like and appreciate what Bulls management has done to date and they've built up some trust in me. If that brands me as a stupid, mindless, unthinking, kool-aid-drinking Bulls' fan, fine.

If they don't trade the pick and they choose Bargnani, Aldridge, Thomas or Roy, I'm OK with it. I trust their judgment and they'll have a lot more info than I have. If they choose Gay, I'll expect to see Deng moved and will question the pick and giving up on Deng. If they choose Morrison, I'll also expect Deng to be moved and will not be a happy guy...at all. Morrison doesn't fit the team's identity, in my opinion.

Kool-aid only takes you so far.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> How about dealing a future first round pick to secure a guy like Luol Deng?


That's only a risk if you think the team you are building is going to be crap next season.

That team ended up being our only winning team since MJ.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> How about drafting Gordon with the #3 pick when the Bulls already had Crawford and Hinrich?


Its not a risk if you are planning on dumping Crawford a month or two later for the Little Oh and the Polish Pistol.

Its an attempt to fill a gap in the team of your own creation.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Once again, Roy is the safe pick because he has the lowest perceived variance of production of the guys at the top. 

If some others want to use a different definition of risk, then fine, but that's the definition of risk I'm talking about when I talk about Roy being the "safe" pick for Paxson. 

Unless Paxson really thinks that in 4 years Brandon Roy is going to be the best player from the guys on the board at the time, he should stay away, unless we are in desperate need of a 2 guard due to a trade he's made. 

Drafting Roy besed on highest downside, given our current roster, isn't a risk, its a stupid move based on fear, IMO. 

If you build a team of NCAA proven all-Americans who are lower on athleticism/height/leaping etc but higher in basketball acumen, you'll have an average NBA team, IMO. You at least need a mix. We have plenty of the all-american, jib types.

Now, I'll reserve judgement until a little before draft day and all the workouts/evaluations are out since I don't watch a lot of NCAA ball as to who Paxson should pick.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I can appreciate the feeling that we need to take risk but I think we just need to be patience until next years draft. 
You have to way up the risk V reward and how likely the rewards is of happening. If Paxson doesn't feel there's anyone in the draft is worth it (potential * probability of reaching potential) then so be it.

"Paxson Way" has gotten us to this point.
The core of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Noc and Chandler.
Two draft picks this year and one next year
Enough cash for one or two decent (not great) Free Agents

Lets not get to carried away. I think it's quite likely we're a 45-50 win team next year with a lottery pick (assuming the Knicks Stink it up) in a really good draft.

If we play it safe this year in the draft and go Roy at two and take a punt at the 16th pick we have
Hinrich/Gordon/Roy Back court
Deng/Noc SF
2 FA Big this year, Chander

And we can add the 2007 pick to that which I would say would be in the 1-7 range.

Calculated risk is good, risk for the sake of it is bad.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> When Paxson signed Rodman, he already had a championship caliber core in place with strong veteran personalities in Jordan and Pippen. The Kukoc pick was not risky, it was innovative. It was the 29th pick in the draft. Its not like Krausy was passing up lottery picks to take the guy.


Rep-worthy...this part and the whole post.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you build a team of NCAA proven all-Americans who are lower on athleticism/height/leaping etc but higher in basketball acumen, you'll have an average NBA team, IMO. You at least need a mix. We have plenty of the all-american, jib types.



I concur to a great extent. I don't know if I'd call it average though. I'd probably call it solid...as in a solid core.

Then you can use free agency and trades to to mix it up and bring in some of the non-jibby players you need. Less risk than a draft pick because you know what you'll get from them.

I actually think this is the tangent that Paxson is on.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ron, you are my hero.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Damn. :biggrin: Fixed it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Seems to be part two of this thread.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> Seems to be part two of this thread.


Yeah, it's a sequel. But some time has passed since then and we're covering new ground in this one. Pretty solid thread here, BTW.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Yeah, it's a sequel. But some time has passed since then and we're covering new ground in this one. Pretty solid thread here, BTW.



Just linked it for reference - it has some good info to remember about Pax. 

Didn't want to bump it though. :angel:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Ron, that's a pretty good analysis, but a few beefs:
> 
> 1. How can you categorize the Curry trade as being anything BUT severe, even pathological risk aversion?


I'm not going to discuss the severity of what you are referring to. I was referring to risk in the basketball sense, not the health sense. 



> 2. Given what I think I know about Pax's worldview -- the AAU circuit = bad, HS players going to the NBA = bad, scouting around the world = practically unnecessary -- I would say that minimizing risk has been one of the main goals of his drafting. Maybe even THE goal, given what Chandler and Curry represented.


I think your opinion of his worldview is an overgeneralization, though with some obvious truth to it. Paxson just his year said the one year restriction on HS players seemed like a good idea at the time, but that he'd like the options the absence of that rule would have afforded him this year. Were I inclined, I could probably find the article. I think it was a day or two after the lottery draw.

I agree that he has been conservative. But by design, not by dogma. 

I believe there is flexibility there and that we've seen his willingness to take risks in a variety of ways as I outlined in part above. 

The scouting around the world comment seems a little silly given that Pax brilliantly beat everyone to Nocioni - a player who is turning into one of the finest foreign players in the league. Also given recent reports that the Bulls scouted Bargnani pretty heavily. Off the top of my head, I can recall it being reported that Paxson himself scouted abroad at least twice this last year. Though I'm speculating, you are most likely basing this on his admission that he didn't ever see Pietrus play. But that was some time ago. 



> It's the Malcolm Gladwell school of building an NBA team: let Coach K and Coach Calhoun and Coach Williams do the heavy lifting. Yeah, Gordon may have thrown a girl down a staircase, and yeah, Deng might have only been at Duke a year, but Paxson's three centerpiece draft picks have been guys from blue-chip programs with blue-chip resumes and (very importantly) the unreserved imprimatur of their Hall-of-Fame college coaches (a noteworthy distinction in the case of Iguodala in 2004).


I have not read Gladwell's books, assuming we are discussing the same Malcolm Gladwell, so this reference is lost on me. But I believe this "blue chippers from blue chip programs" is happenstance, and nothing more. Had Paxson drafted TJ Ford, Andre Iguodala, Josh Childress or Devin Harris, instead of who he did draft, this same argument could be pinned to him. 

The only example I can think of that is rationally arguable is Livingston, who may very well prove to be far better than Gordon down the road. Though there are other context specific explanations, such as the existence of Hinrich (as well as adding a HS point guard to then developing Curry and Chandler as centerpieces), for why Livingston wasn't taken that fall outside your generalized "Pax's Worldview" theory. 



> There's nothing wrong with that -- Gladwell used it to show how a moron could do a better job of running a team than Isiah Thomas and other so-called experts have. But Gladwell acknowledges that few NBA teams, if any, have won a title without deviating from and expanding upon that model.


I wouldn't know. But the assumption you are making is one of inflexibility. I don't believe at all that Paxson won't be flexible when he decides the foundation is solid enough, with enough experience and leadership to absorb, shall we say, more "challenging" talents. 



> You may consider Roy to be a risky pick. I strongly doubt Paxson does, given his track record.


Then Paxson is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Its a big risk. Unless he has other moves lined up, of course.



> I think of the players we are likely to take at 2, Bargnani represents the biggest risk to Paxson and Thomas is probably riskier than we're all assuming. He would probably be most comfortable with Roy and (ugh) Aldridge.


I have no idea what Paxson considers to be a risk and have no foundation to hazard a guess. 



> 3. re Paxson's blowing up of teams and roster turnover -- I don't think this has as much to do with his tolerance for risk as it indicates A. *that the Chairman loves to save money * and B. that the *Bulls' fan base was genuinely unraveling at the start of the Paxson administration*. It'd be risky for me to jump out of my office window right now. But it'd be self-preservation to jump out of the same window if the building was on fire.


I'm not going to get into this with you again about Jerry Reinsdorf's alleged cheapness. I think its hogwash and I've detailed why too many times in the past. I'm not going to rehash that now. 

The fan base was unraveling because that team was obviously horribly flawed as constructed by Paxson's predecessor. Paxson reacted aggressively after 16 games on the job and laid waste to that wretched den of pansies and thieves. I suspect Jalen Rose never looked back after being traded for fear of turning into a pillar of salt. 

Sorry for the rhetoric. I didn't post here back then, so you guys don't know how much I loathed that team. I'd imagine I felt then much how Knicks fans felt this season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Though there are other context specific explanations, such as the existence of Hinrich (as well as adding a HS point guard to then developing Curry and Chandler as centerpieces), for why Livingston wasn't taken that fall outside your generalized "Pax's Worldview" theory.


It may have been as simple as having watched one HS to Pros player struggle in front of the "home crowd".

I like what ESPN says about the draft:



> We all know draft prognostication isn't an exact science.
> 
> Exhibit A: Tayshaun Prince, who scored 29 points in an elimination game against the Heat on Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

taurus515th said:


> im glad that paxson is playing it safe. :clap: :clap: :clap:


THen you must be glad with getting bumped out of the first round year after year then.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> THen you must be glad with getting bumped out of the first round year after year then.


Yes I am. I'm glad we made the playoff. Our young guys now have 10 playoff games under their belts.


Jordon's team got swept the first couple of times in the play offs. We're building and going the right direction. It takes a fair bit to build a championship team, you have to be able to get bang for you buck in your supporting crew as well as a star player or two.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> THen you must be glad with getting bumped out of the first round year after year then.



No one is...but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a fan on this board that thinks the Bulls are already caught in some sort 1 and out "rut".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> No one is...but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a fan on this board that thinks the Bulls are already caught in some sort 1 and out "rut".


How many seasons constitutes a rut?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

During rebuilding or after?

We're still rebuilding. :yes:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not going to discuss the severity of what you are referring to. I was referring to risk in the basketball sense, not the health sense.


No matter how you want to position it, it was, ultimately, a basketball decision. Every decision Paxson makes, to some degree, is a basketball decision. I think it's more than fair to consider Paxson's extreme risk aversion in that one incident when discussing his aversion to risk on the whole.



> The scouting around the world comment seems a little silly given that Pax brilliantly beat everyone to Nocioni - a player who is turning into one of the finest foreign players in the league. Also given recent reports that the Bulls scouted Bargnani pretty heavily. Off the top of my head, I can recall it being reported that Paxson himself scouted abroad at least twice this last year. Though I'm speculating, you are most likely basing this on his admission that he didn't ever see Pietrus play. But that was some time ago.


The Nocioni signing may be a good example of Pax's negotiating skills or business acumen, but I don't see how it speaks to his ability to scout internationally or the importance he places on international scouting, organizationally. Nocioni was on everyone's radar since the dunk on Garnett, and any of us armchair GMs got to see plenty of him playing in the Worlds or Euroleague games. Once Ginobili entered the NBA, Nocioni and Bodiroga were widely considered to be the best players in the world outside the league. He was hardly plucked from obscurity.

Don't get me wrong -- it's great that Paxson actually made some trips this year, but if he were truly concerned about scouting the game internationally, he would have convinced Reinsdorf to hire multiple full-time scouts there, and ones better qualified than the painfully incompetent Ivica Dukan (I loathe him more than you loathed the Jalen Rose Bulls). Put it all together, and I don't think it's unfair to say that Paxson doesn't put a premium on finding talent outside of the NCAA.



> Had Paxson drafted TJ Ford, Andre Iguodala, Josh Childress or Devin Harris, instead of who he did draft, this same argument could be pinned to him.


Not to the same extent, though -- those guys don't have quite the same pedigrees, nor did they accomplish quite as much as the guys Paxson ultimately drafted. And I doubt he'd have picked Ford (spinal stenosis isn't covered by the league's insurers) or Iguodala (there were tons of rumors that Lute was trying to sandbag him because he forgot to kiss Lute's ring before hiring an agent) in any case. 



> I agree that he has been conservative. But by design, not by dogma.





> I believe there is flexibility there and that we've seen his willingness to take risks in a variety of ways as I outlined in part above.





> I don't believe at all that Paxson won't be flexible when he decides the foundation is solid enough, with enough experience and leadership to absorb, shall we say, more "challenging" talents.


I guess we'll just agree to disagree about whether Paxson's shown a willingness to take risks thus far. I simply refuse to accept the practice of drafting players fresh out of the Final Four, which has been the hallmark of Paxson's tenure, as being "risky." But assuming you're right about Pax's being flexible, when, exactly, do you feel he'll be willing to take the biggest risk of all and bring in a guy lacking in jib, like a Robert Horry or a Rasheed Wallace? Is it this year? Two years from now? 5? 10?


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Don't get me wrong -- it's great that Paxson actually made some trips this year, but if he were truly concerned about scouting the game internationally, he would have convinced Reinsdorf to hire multiple full-time scouts there, and ones better qualified than the painfully incompetent Ivica Dukan (I loathe him more than you loathed the Jalen Rose Bulls). Put it all together, and I don't think it's unfair to say that Paxson doesn't put a premium on finding talent outside of the NCAA.


Would you like to hazard a guess why Paxson is non-NCAA talent adverse?


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How many seasons constitutes a rut?


Kevin Garnett spending all of his prime years, bar one, in the first round = rut.

The Baby Bulls making it to the first round twice in a row with all of their best basketball ahead of them does not equal a rut.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

darlets said:


> Would you like to hazard a guess why Paxson is non-NCAA talent adverse?


I don't think it has anything to do with Curry and Chandler (which is what I assume you're getting at). He was all set to give them combined contracts worth in excess of $120 million before Curry experienced his palpitations.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

darlets said:


> Would you like to hazard a guess why Paxson is non-NCAA talent adverse?


Well, lets see,
Outstanding players on final 4 teams :
-- are usually heavily recruited and identified for excellence in high school.
-- have enough intelligence to have been admitted to college
-- manage to lead leading teams because they continue to be excellent ballplayers
-- have the best coaching available in college
-- have played important games in front of large enthusiastic audiences. Made crucial plays successfully in high pressure situations.
-- come complete with scouting reports from a variety of sources and a large body of film to study

What is not to like about such players?


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with Curry and Chandler (which is what I assume you're getting at). He was all set to give them combined contracts worth in excess of $120 million before Curry experienced his palpitations.


I was just curious. You mentioned he doesn't seem to scout Europe much.
Which given the quality of play over there I find odd. I was more getting at why would a team not be interested in European players?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

darlets said:


> I was just curious. You mentioned he doesn't seem to scout Europe much.
> Which given the quality of play over there I find odd. I was more getting at why would a team not be interested in European players?


I don't think the Bulls aren't interested in European players, I just think they aren't willing to make the investment to scout outside the US more thoroughly, and this puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

I have never denied that at one point in time, Reinsdorf was absolutely cutting-edge and no-holds-barred when it came to spending for the team. The Bulls were one of the first teams to have its own plane, and own practice facility, and a full-time European scout. 

The problem is, that was 15+ years ago. Now every team has its own plane, either owned outright or via the NBA's charter service (the Bulls use the latter). Now every team but one or two has its own state-of-the-art practice facility, and some are nicer than Berto and some are actually integrated into the team's home arena (Conseco, American Airlines Center, etc.). Most every team has a full-time international scouting operation. 

I'd like to see Reinsdorf raise the bar another time, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Just a comment on sports in general. Alot of champion/premier teams in sports actually lead their league in the sports science and facility side. They push the boundries. So yeah if the bulls would take the lead in that again that would be great.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Banjoriddim said:


> Totally agree. also whats te point of this thread who do you want Bulls4Life....


Bargnani!!!!!!!

The second best prospect is Rudy Gay.


Quite frankly, unless a guy is a slug who won't put forth the effort (TT, ERob, Jeff Sanders, etc...:laugh: ) you should have enough confidence in your organization to take the best prospect and mold and shape that prospect to your liking. To always go for the most polished prospect is sort of an indictment of your coaching staff, trainers, nutritionists, etc... It's like you KNOW your staff is not gonna elevate a player much so you have to get a player that's almost there even though the player with the raw skills will probably be better down the road.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The conservative play would have been to draft Deng, since the Bulls needed a small forward at the time. They ended up getting him anyway; but drafting Ben was certainly not a conservative move.


He decided Ben was a better prospect than Deng and I agree. He figured Iguodala would still be there at 7. Deng fell unexpectedly, so maybe taking Deng at 7 was the real risk because, why did he fall???


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Ron, that's a pretty good analysis, but a few beefs:
> 
> 1. How can you categorize the Curry trade as being anything BUT severe, even pathological risk aversion?
> 
> ...


ScottMay, you are my hero!!!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I am not certain how drafting excellent players with backgrounds in excellent programs suddenly became a negative.

I don't believe in any of the circumstances Pax has done this he has been blinded by conservatism to pass on a player who was clearly, clearly better, but from a lesser known program.

Heck, Michael Jordan played for **gasp** Dean Smith at North Carolina. Shoulda passed on that guy. Too "safe."


I do agree that moving Curry was a risk aversion move, at least in one sense. He perceived a potential career ending health risk (which we have discussed ad nauseum) which, if it did recur, could have stapped the team financially for the next decade, paying off a player who is out of the league.

I think he also perceived that he didn't want to pay near max dollars for a player whose shortcomings may outweigh his positives, even if the positives are more readily observed in ppg and fg%. (After last season, I'm not sure he should have paid EITHER of Krause's Twin Teen experiment members...but I'm hoping Ty will still prove me wrong).

On the other hand, from the "one in the hand" perspective, he moved a 16ppg true center, a fairly rare commodity, without knowing exactly what he was getting in return. We still don't know.

In a sense, that is a risky move, isn't it? Certainly, sticking to his convictions the way he did was not a "cowardly" move, IMO.


----------

