# Paxson on Pax's Trade Deadline Strategy



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

There has been a lot of blasting/supporting of Paxson about what he was or was not trying to do leading up to the trade deadline. Well, assuming you believe what he says publicly (which I know many don't), here is a pretty clear statement about what he tried to do:



> "First of all, I never talked to anybody about our core [players] -- I was not going to do that,'' Paxson said shortly after the 2p.m. deadline. "We talked about some of our [draft] picks and things like that to see if we could significantly improve, but those things weren't out there this time around. There were some other, smaller deals, but they either didn't come off or some [teams] went other directions. That's what happens.''


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull242.html

Another tidbit from the Daily Herald:



> “I’ve got to believe as we go along and add better players to our current core, you never know what can happen,” Paxson said. “Let’s keep chipping away. Let’s keep trying to build this thing the right way. Let’s not make mistakes with the type of people we bring in. I’ll live with all that.”


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=159703

Now that, my friends, is a peek into the window of his mind. That is a basis upon which to criticize or support his strategy. So have at it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I predict the criticism will center around Pax's refusal to deal the core players. The argument will go something like, "If the Lakers are offering Kobe or the T-Wolves are offering Garnett for Luol/Kirk/Ben/Tyson/etc., you have to be open to that."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There has been a lot of blasting/supporting of Paxson about what he was or was not trying to do leading up to the trade deadline. Well, assuming you believe what he says publicly (which I know many don't), here is a pretty clear statement about what he tried to do:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good idea... how about you do the honors and lead off?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Good idea... how about you do the honors and lead off?


I've stated before that I think the better way to effect the consolidation trade - I do support a consolidation trade - is to approach it *after* the draft and free agency. In short, I agree with him.

Big surprise, eh?

And when I say "after" I include that to mean leading up to next season's trade deadline and even to next summer (2007) when the Bulls (theoretically) have the Knicks pick and the super-duper players enter restricted and unrestricted free agency (sign and trade).

In short, he appears to be doing what I've advocated he do.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

In any case, his refusal to even discuss his core guys doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Here's a quote from Pax in the thread Miz started. "I do think in the summer, that's when teams try to make over their roster more than any other time," Paxson said. "We'll have discussions with a lot of teams this summer about players who are under current contract, not just the free-agent market."

Assuming he's not just talking about trading for some slug, the core guys are going to have to at least be discussed. So if you're willing to do it in the summer, why not do it now? If anything, doing it now might have several advantages:

* Our picks seem unlikely to get more valuable than their expected positions now. If anything they'll drop a little bit.
* There might be one or two GMs out there who still think Sweetney can play.
* We're obviously better off by trading, a core player plus Thomas now than just paying a core player in an uneven trade later later when we're under the cap. In the first situation, we're at least using that money producitively, in the latter we just waste the $5M or so we're giving Thomas to sit on his ***.
* Any deal like this is going to be pretty big. It's quite possibly going to create holes in some places and logjams in others. By making a trade sooner, you have quite a bit more time to evaluate your team needs and make changes. 

Last summer we saw Pax basically employed a "one-at-a-time" approach. Duhon, then Chandler, then Curry, then everything else. I know it wasn't true in absolute terms, but it was generally correct and it's clear one can only do so much in a limited amount of time. If you spend your time negotiating a trade for one guy, you have less time available to fill in your roster. Plus, you're probably spending the lead up time scouting guys (both for the draft and free agency) who fit into your current team instead of the team you have after the trade.

* Finally, you can't do anything if you don't try. Saying "well, there were no trades available" doesn't mean a lot if you don't offer anything. And even if your trade doesn't go down by the deadline, there's some value in planting the seed of the idea. Suppose the Bulls made Kevin McHale aware of what they'd be willing to part with to get Garnett. Maybe McHale decides not to trade Garnett yet, but he pays a bit more attention to the Bulls' players over the rest of the season. When the season's over and he actually trades Garnett, the first guy he calls is us. Point is, if you aren't active and realistic in discussions, it's hard to know what's out there. what people say is "available" is often less than people think, but sometimes it's more. It depends on when and how you ask and what you'd offer back. If when, how, and what you offer are never, with no subtlety, and nothing, then there's not going to be much on the market for you. Other GMs might think talking to you is a little bit like talking to Elmer Fudd, however.

All in all, I don't think there's a lot new here. Pax is risk averse to the point of riskiness in my opinion. It seems like things drag on forever when you leave things to the last minute, you don't always have time to scramble when something unexpected happens. I understand and agree with the idea of not doing anything foolish, but I don't understand or agree with the idea of just _per se_ deciding not to do anything (meaning at least discuss seriously) now when you know you need to at some point.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> In any case, his refusal to even discuss his core guys doesn't make a lot of sense to me.




I don't think that's the case though. Just my opinion.

I think he's more than willing to discuss the "core guys", but only if a team approaches him with something worthwhile. I mean, what's the point in trading our guys away if we're getting just another role player in return? Seems like the results would be minimal; they might even be negative with the shift in chemistry.

Francis, Watson, Evans, Lenard, Radmanovic, Wilcox...these are the guys being moved. And there's very little I'd want to give up for any of them, all things considering (for example, I like Reggie Evans alot but I believe he's a free agent this summer, so what's the point?). I also like Watson alot, but the Nuggets were looking to move him for a big man, which we really couldn't afford to give up.

In any case, I think Ron Cey's point is dead on. Keep our draft picks this summer (unless a can't miss offer comes up), sign the most valuable players possible in free agency, and expect a pretty good playoff quality team next season (if things go well, I could see anywhere from #3 to #6 seed). And with the apparent strong FA class of 2007, which some of you have raved about, we would have a boatload of young talented player to use in a sign & trade. Sounds good to me.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm confused by Paxson's comments ("never talked to anyone about our core") in relation to McGraw's e-mail to miz claiming there were "dozens" of teams inquiring about Ben Gordon. Did that not happen? 

As I said during Currygate, I'm a big actions-instead-of-words guy. I find it incredibly interesting that Pax is suddenly hedging his bets and acknowledging that it's a crappy free agent class. I completely agree with him and I appreciate his honesty. However, it's not a coincidence that all of our eggs rest in this offseason's basket -- this has been Pax's plan all along. 

I'm in total agreement with Mike -- I think as the funnel narrows and we get closer and closer to a draft where there probably won't be a consensus #1 choice, the Knicks' pick will lose value. Plus the Knicks could get better, or we could get burned in Secaucus again and end up at 4-5. 

And my biggest concern about waiting for an offseason trade is my belief that we'll have a lot more competition for whatever superstar is on the block, not less. If we'd overwhelmed the T-Wolves with an offer before the deadline, they wouldn't have had time to shop it around. In the offseason, superstar trades are more like an auction.

Then there's the issue of right-here, right-now. The team looks fantastic when it's rested and playing home games vs. teams on the second night of a back-to-back. Other times, not so much. We've got ten sets of back-to-back games left this season, and in nine of those, we're on the road the second night. We really needed some reinforcements for our playoff push, and Pax didn't get us any.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't know who "the core guys" are.

I have an idea that Hinrich is one of them.

Seems to me that Curry was one of the "core guys" before he got traded, so you can never know.

All that REALLY matters to me:
24-29 .453
9th seed, 2 games behind Philly for 8th

All that matters to others:
$44M profit for Reinsdorf


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> In any case, I think Ron Cey's point is dead on. Keep our draft picks this summer (unless a can't miss offer comes up), sign the most valuable players possible in free agency, and expect a pretty good playoff quality team next season (if things go well, I could see anywhere from #3 to #6 seed). And with the apparent strong FA class of 2007, which some of you have raved about, we would have a boatload of young talented player to use in a sign & trade. Sounds good to me.


Got it -- so we're already resetting the clock to 2007. Why stop there? I'm sure we could land some great players with Tyson's expiring contract in 2010-2011, e.g.

Chasing restricted FAs when you're over the cap is pretty hit-or-miss. We'd be on the outside looking in until offer sheets are signed and the home team is left deciding to match or let go. Then the restricted FA has to approve being traded to Chicago rather than the team he'd signed the offer sheet with. Lots and lots of variables there.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I don't think that's the case though. Just my opinion.
> 
> I think he's more than willing to discuss the "core guys", but only if a team approaches him with something worthwhile.


But, like Ron Cey said, you've got it straight from the horse's mouth that he wasn't.



> I mean, what's the point in trading our guys away if we're getting just another role player in return? Seems like the results would be minimal; they might even be negative with the shift in chemistry.


I don't think anyone sees the point in that. The concern isn't that there wasn't a trade, but that you've got him sitting there basically saying they wouldn't discuss their core guys.



> Francis, Watson, Evans, Lenard, Radmanovic, Wilcox...these are the guys being moved. And there's very little I'd want to give up for any of them, all things considering (for example, I like Reggie Evans alot but I believe he's a free agent this summer, so what's the point?). I also like Watson alot, but the Nuggets were looking to move him for a big man, which we really couldn't afford to give up.


But this was exactly my point in my prior post. You can't look at the guys who were traded and say "well gee, that's all that was available", because what's available depends on what's offered. If you don't offer anything useful, no one is going to trade anything more than the guys listed.



> In any case, I think Ron Cey's point is dead on. Keep our draft picks this summer (unless a can't miss offer comes up), sign the most valuable players possible in free agency, and expect a pretty good playoff quality team next season (if things go well, I could see anywhere from #3 to #6 seed). And with the apparent strong FA class of 2007, which some of you have raved about, we would have a boatload of young talented player to use in a sign & trade. Sounds good to me.


Well sure, but why arbitrarily limit yourself to that and refuse to explore every option available? 

What's the advantage of not even discussing our core guys now?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Got it -- so we're already resetting the clock to 2007. Why stop there? I'm sure we could land some great players with Tyson's expiring contract in 2010-2011, e.g.
> 
> Chasing restricted FAs when you're over the cap is pretty hit-or-miss. We'd be on the outside looking in until offer sheets are signed and the home team is left deciding to match or let go. Then the restricted FA has to approve being traded to Chicago rather than the team he'd signed the offer sheet with. Lots and lots of variables there.


If you keep people excited about a "core" of players who make $2M to $3M each, you keep the seats filled and the profits rolling in.

Seems all you need to do is to keep replenishing that "core" with new draft picks and you keep the lemmings (that'd be butts in the seats) following the program.

We've seen it all before, eh?

All things considered, it is remarkable that Chandler was re-signed to a contract bigger than MLE. Isn't he the first/only since the dynasty? There are those darned CBA rules... the opposite of a salary cap - miniumum total payroll.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If you keep people excited about a "core" of players who make $2M to $3M each, you keep the seats filled and the profits rolling in.
> 
> Seems all you need to do is to keep replenishing that "core" with new draft picks and you keep the lemmings (that'd be butts in the seats) following the program.
> 
> ...


Prepare yourself for a barrage of "do you want us to be the Knicks or Blazers" comments. As if there's no middle ground between the miser and the spendthrift.

You are completely right that "keeping our options open" and "maintaining maximum flexibility" also coincide with a fat bottom line for the Chairman and Co. However, I've made an unwritten promise to shelve my discussions of the Chairman and just let my sig do the talking. For whatever reason, things get ugly when the conversation turns to the Bulls' profit-taking.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Prepare yourself for a barrage of "do you want us to be the Knicks or Blazers" comments. As if there's no middle ground between the miser and the spendthrift.
> 
> You are completely right that "keeping our options open" and "maintaining maximum flexibility" also coincide with a fat bottom line for the Chairman and Co. However, I've made an unwritten promise to shelve my discussions of the Chairman and just let my sig do the talking. For whatever reason, things get ugly when the conversation turns to the Bulls' profit-taking.


It's funny how a $6M contract (hardly a max deal or knicks/blazers kind of deal) is "overpaying"

yikes


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I don't think Pax was calling around and offering our core guys to other teams. This is what I think he meant by his earlier statement. 

However, I do believe he listened to offers for our core guys, and turned those offers down. Case in point, I read on the other board that the GM of the Wizards (Grunfeld?) called Pax and offered him Etan Thomas for Luol Deng. Really. I also believe McGraw's report that several teams called inquiring about Ben. Pax probably didn't initiate any of the talks regarding our core guys, but I guess "technically" one could say he had talks about them if he was turning down offers such as Etan for Deng.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If you keep people excited about a "core" of players who make $2M to $3M each, you keep the seats filled and the profits rolling in.
> 
> Seems all you need to do is to keep replenishing that "core" with new draft picks and you keep the lemmings (that'd be butts in the seats) following the program.
> 
> ...


BINGO!!! i said about the samething a few months back that if pax didnt make a move by the deadline then i doubt he'll do much in the offseason becuase of the lack of good players in FA.he is already plainting that seed of"well there just wasnt much on the market,so we didnt use our cap" with this""We'll have discussions with a lot of teams this summer about players who are under current contract, *not just the free-agent market*."...

its all about money here,i wounder why it is that the bulls want hard workers,but just not high level players that are hard workers?becuase in america the hardest workers are always the most UNDERPAID...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

It is about money.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> It is about money.


but not in the good way of spending it wisely for the better of the team.its more like spend none of it so we can get richer off these dummys that keep comeing to the games..


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

SALO said:


> I don't think Pax was calling around and offering our core guys to other teams. This is what I think he meant by his earlier statement.
> 
> However, I do believe he listened to offers for our core guys, and turned those offers down. Case in point, I read on the other board that the GM of the Wizards (Grunfeld?) called Pax and offered him Etan Thomas for Luol Deng. Really. I also believe McGraw's report that several teams called inquiring about Ben. Pax probably didn't initiate any of the talks regarding our core guys, but I guess "technically" one could say he had talks about them if he was turning down offers such as Etan for Deng.


So Pax should get some *credit* for taking another GMs call and not hanging up on him. I don't think so.

Personally, I agree with MikeDC, I would have liked to see him a bit more proactive. I certainly hope he called up the Cavs about Gooden, Denver about Nene, and Atlanta about Harrington (if Pax thinks he is a 4) to see how much their current team values them. That could be very helpful this summer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> But this was exactly my point in my prior post. You can't look at the guys who were traded and say "well gee, that's all that was available", because what's available depends on what's offered. If you don't offer anything useful, no one is going to trade anything more than the guys listed.


When I look at the guys who were traded, I see two names that some people here were salivating over as FA acquisitions: Pryzbilla and Nene.

The oddest thing is that I was reading a recent Sam Smith article (couple days old) and it's amazing how accurate he was:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...mith,1,4859067.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines



> The Bulls have less than 24 hours to acquire Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, Lamar Odom, Al Harrington, Theo Ratliff, Earl Watson, Quentin Richardson, Kenyon Martin, Bonzi Wells, Voshon Lenard, Drew Gooden, Damon Jones, Marko Jaric, Jamal Crawford, Nate Robinson, Reggie Evans, Nene, Darius Miles, Speedy Claxton, J.R. Smith, Carlos Boozer, Eric Williams, Tyronn Lue, Melvin Ely, Brevin Knight, Marc Jackson, Ronald Murray and Derek Fisher.


Seems like a pretty accurate list of who were certainly available - and a number of those in his list actually did get traded.

He goes on:



> The Bulls are watching all this carefully because they hold the Knicks' No. 1 draft pick from the Eddy Curry trade. The Bulls are not expected to make a major move, although a minor change is possible with players on expiring contracts, such as Malik Allen and Eric Piatkowski.


Nailed that one.



> A deal for Tim Thomas seems unlikely because the Bulls refuse to take on contracts not expiring unless it is for a great player. Garnett's name has been floated at times, and although the Bulls have the kind of pieces—young players and high draft picks—that presumably would interest a rebuilding team, the Timberwolves seem loath to make a big move now.
> 
> Based on their history, it seems unlikely the Bulls would let Thomas go in a buyout to an Eastern team they could battle for a playoff spot, such as the 76ers and Nets, who have expressed interest in him.


Now that the dust has settled, it seems like Sam was 100% right again.



> Harrington looks like he will remain in Atlanta, at least for the rest of the regular season. General managers say they continue to hear Iverson's name put out like a carrot on a stick to see if it will bring anything. The belief is the 76ers are too gun-shy to pull the trigger on a big deal and probably will wait for summer, as will Atlanta.


Nailed that one, too.



> The NBA's parity, however, has teams bunched for bottom playoff spots in the East and West, meaning one or two games can make a big difference generating revenue from at least two home first-round playoff games or gaining a higher spot in the draft.


Not being a mouthpiece for the team here.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't know who "the core guys" are.
> 
> I have an idea that Hinrich is one of them.
> 
> ...


Why is it no issue with you when a player makes $14 million in a season, but you do when the owners are making $44 million (between them all) in a season they are trying to preserve cap space since Pax couldn't find a suitable midseason trade that he wanted done?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Why is it no issue with you when a player makes $14 million in a season, but you do when the owners are making $44 million (between them all) in a season they are trying to preserve cap space since Pax couldn't find a suitable midseason trade that he wanted done?


24-29
2 games out of the 8th seed

It's about WINNING at ALL (reasonable) COSTS.

We won 47 games with a $13M player getting minutes last season. If paying $13M for quality players is what it takes, then paying $13M for quality players is what it takes.

I didn't have ANY problem with the Bulls paying Jordan $30M a season. Did you?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> So Pax should get some *credit* for taking another GMs call and not hanging up on him. I don't think so..


I don't think I was trying to give him any credit for that.



> Personally, I agree with MikeDC, I would have liked to see him a bit more proactive. I certainly hope he called up the Cavs about Gooden, Denver about Nene, and Atlanta about Harrington (if Pax thinks he is a 4) to see how much their current team values them. That could be very helpful this summer.


There were reports David Aldridge said on TNT the Bulls offered Sweetney to the Hawks for Al Harrington. Another report said Pax offered any of our bigs (except Tyson) plus filler for Harrington. Atlanta's GM apparently turned it down because they actually want to sign him to a new contract in the offseason. They probably do, but I bet Al leaves anyway.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> So Pax should get some *credit* for taking another GMs call and not hanging up on him. I don't think so.
> 
> Personally, I agree with MikeDC, I would have liked to see him a bit more proactive. I certainly hope he called up the Cavs about Gooden, Denver about Nene, and Atlanta about Harrington (if Pax thinks he is a 4) to see how much their current team values them. That could be very helpful this summer.


How do you know he didn't call other teams about the players you listed? Can you show me something, somewhere that states that Pax made absolutely no inquiries before the trade deadline? He's getting railed on for not making a move. It takes two to tango. If the Nuggets wanted Gordon and a pick for Nene, would you do it or would you hang up the phone on Kiki? Someone else brought up the Post article that stated the Wiz were looking at Deng for Etan Thomas. Is that a deal you'd make? 

There are 30 teams in the League and 30 teams that could have made deals at the trade deadline? How many actually pulled the trigger on anything? Also, there was only ONE major deal that went down and that was Francis to the Knicks. The rest were small, minor deals with teams shifting bench players for whatever reason. Of all these big names bandied about, only ONE actually came to pass. Kevin Garnet is still on the Wolves. Pierce is still with the Celtics. Allen and Lewis are still in Seattle and on and on. Gee, maybe making a deal that seems to work for both sides is a little bit more difficult than the folks here would care to realize?

It's all well and good to make light of the fact that Pax didn't make a deal. He didn't. To suggest that he didn't do anything, in my opinion, is a disservice to the man and the job that he's done so far. I think he tried to do some things and nothing came of it - the same as about 20 other GM's who didn't pull the trigger on anything. I guarantee you, if he'd have traded, say, Sweetney to the Wolves for Griffen; there would be thread after thread sarcastically proclaiming Griffen as that great missing piece that would make us a contender... all hail Pax! As it is, we get this.

The main point I'm trying to make is that no deal went down, but I don't know how so many can so blithly state is was from a lack of trying without any proof. Intellectually, morally and ethically, I couldn't do that because it's just not right. To each their own I suppose - flame on!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Gee, maybe making a deal that seems to work for both sides is a little bit more difficult than the folks here would care to realize?


Point well taken. My issue here is the perception that some/most/all of the various things that hold up or prevent trades from happening will magically disappear over the summer, or the summer of 2007, or the summer of 2011. 

All of the various hang-ups that get in the way of trades happening will still be there this summer. We're actually going to have to discuss our "core" guys, and actually trade one or more of them. We will likely have to take on an ugly contract or two. There will be more teams competing for the superstars we want.

That's all. I won't kill Pax for staying the course, but let's not pretend that things get any easier come summertime.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 24-29
> 2 games out of the 8th seed
> 
> It's about WINNING at ALL (reasonable) COSTS.
> ...


I haven't followed the financials of the Bulls organization, but I would assume that this year would be a local high point in terms of profitability of the organization because we are trying to preserve cap space. Assuming we have the same "core" three years from now after their rookie deals are up, we're definately going to have to pay up. If they are winning, Reinsdorf will pay. If they are not winning, Reinsdorf won't and one or more players will have to go.

Reinsdorf does operate this as a business, and I see no problem keeping SOME money for its shareholders. Even the non-frugal Mark Cuban realized that spending so much for a non contender was not beneficial to the franchise in the long run and has toned down his own spending. Isaiah is just lost, I think.

No I didn't have a problem with the Bulls paying Jordan $30 mil. I did not have a problem with the Bulls paying AD $13mil last year--and that is because he was the result of traing for a player with a horrible contract (Rose). I did have a problem paying Mercer, ERob, and trading for Rose at the salary he was making. Trading for Rose set us back a couple of years after four horrible losing season and how much were we paying him?

Outside of a trade, the Bulls only had the MLE to spend last offseason. They were not allowed per league rules to spend any more money on players. Did you hear any deals attractive to you that were turned down by Paxson? Ricky Davis and Steve Francis both sure would have been an upgrade over any of our core.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Point well taken. My issue here is the perception that some/most/all of the various things that hold up or prevent trades from happening will magically disappear over the summer, or the summer of 2007, or the summer of 2011.
> 
> All of the various hang-ups that get in the way of trades happening will still be there this summer. We're actually going to have to discuss our "core" guys, and actually trade one or more of them. We will likely have to take on an ugly contract or two. There will be more teams competing for the superstars we want.
> 
> That's all. I won't kill Pax for staying the course, but let's not pretend that things get any easier come summertime.


Sure. Nothing happened as of March 23, 2006 and so the next thing to do is to focus on this summer - the draft and free agency. I will say that Pax is doing his job insomuch as he has to "sell" this team as it is now and what it can be in the future. I don't know if things will be easier or harder this summer. I can see somethings being more difficult but others as easier. I think it would be easier to obtain Paul Pierce over the summer because a guy like Ainge doesn't seem the type to change course like that during the season. It would also seem easier to me from a GM/Ownership perspective to sell moving a star-quality player over the offseason that it would be to sell the same move before the trade deadline. Teams are more apt to remake their roster over the summer which might mean more available players. The flip side to that is there are also more available shoppers. I think overall, deals are more readily available over the summer because most GM's won't take risks during the season.

The one thing it seems most all of us here agree on (even with our various philosophical differences) is that this summer is pretty much the make-or-break time for Pax and his tenure with the Bulls. You can't ask for much more to arm a GM with than good draft picks, cash (cap space) and desirable young talent. I expect _something_ this summer with respect to making this team into a perennial conference contender.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> The one thing it seems most all of us here agree on (even with our various philosophical differences) is that this summer is pretty much the make-or-break time for Pax and his tenure with the Bulls.


I disagree here if what you're proposing is a need to acquire a star this summer. I'd much rather Paxson use the draft picks and cap space to bring in more quality players. With those additions, dealing from our core group becomes much easier as we have more depth to replace talent losses in the trade. A consolidation deal in which the Bulls give up numerous players from their core group at this point would leave the team in only a slightly better position than the team giving up the star. So in my view, summer 2007 is the real make-or-break time. 

Even with all that said, though, I fully expect the Bulls to become a top 3 or 4 team in the East next season just based on improvement through free agency and the draft.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Even with all that said, though, I fully expect the Bulls to become a top 3 or 4 team in the East next season just based on improvement through free agency and the draft.


I think that depends on the tact Paxson chooses. What happens if he decides to gamble on a stars drafts Bergenini and trades up for Gay? I don't think the Bulls would be an elite team next year if that were the case.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> It's all well and good to make light of the fact that Pax didn't make a deal. He didn't. To suggest that he didn't do anything, in my opinion, is a disservice to the man and the job that he's done so far. I think he tried to do some things and nothing came of it - the same as about 20 other GM's who didn't pull the trigger on anything. I guarantee you, if he'd have traded, say, Sweetney to the Wolves for Griffen; there would be thread after thread sarcastically proclaiming Griffen as that great missing piece that would make us a contender... all hail Pax! As it is, we get this.
> 
> The main point I'm trying to make is that no deal went down, but I don't know how so many can so blithly state is was from a lack of trying without any proof. Intellectually, morally and ethically, I couldn't do that because it's just not right. To each their own I suppose - flame on!


" I would have liked to see him a bit more proactive."

This is blithy and flame on?

The GM said he didn't talk about his core with anyone. In past interviews, he has included as many as 6 players in his core. I am giving him the benifit of the doubt, here. I will say this..... if he didn't call any GM and offer any of Deng, Hinrich, Chandler, Duhon, Gordon, & Noc at least hypothecially, then *Pax should be fired*.

Now there is a flame for you..... Jeez :clown:


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> I think that depends on the tact Paxson chooses. What happens if he decides to gamble on a stars drafts Bergenini and trades up for Gay? I don't think the Bulls would be an elite team next year if that were the case.


True, but I am of the opinion that simply signing a competent free agent PF like Al Harrington or Drew Gooden would help this team get to that 3/4 spot.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So in my view, summer 2007 is the real make-or-break time.


Another Paxolyte hits the snooze button. Unbelievable. 

Quick, anybody -- can we please set a date as to when it'll be acceptable to judge the Paxson regime and have some expectations fulfilled? Is it 2010? 2025? 2050? 

I also could have sworn that within the last 72 hours you trashed me for saying Orlando's cap situation in 2007 was enviable. What happened between now and then to make you change your mind about that FA class? Or do you honestly think we'll have an advantage in recruiting FAs vs. a team that has Dwight Howard, no state income tax, great weather, possibly a brand-new arena in the works (flash can weigh in on that), and $20+ million of free-and-clear Cap Space?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Short term, Paxson has fulfilled expectations. We dont know about long term success, but so far he has achieved what his employer demanded.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Another Paxolyte hits the snooze button. Unbelievable.
> 
> Quick, anybody -- can we please set a date as to when it'll be acceptable to judge the Paxson regime and have some expectations fulfilled? Is it 2010? 2025? 2050?


  



> I also could have sworn that within the last 72 hours you trashed me for saying Orlando's cap situation in 2007 was enviable. What happened between now and then to make you change your mind about that FA class?


Any "star" player available during that summer, whether already under contract or entering restricted free agency on a rookie deal, will be acquired through trades or sign & trades. No GM in their right mind would allow Bosh or Wade to walk away without receiving anything in return (you seemed to have acknowledged this with your "5% chance" comment). In that sense, assets to trade are more valuable than available cap space. Sure, the Magic have money to spend on Pietrus or TJ Ford. Good for them.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Another Paxolyte hits the snooze button. Unbelievable.
> 
> Quick, anybody -- can we please set a date as to when it'll be acceptable to judge the Paxson regime and have some expectations fulfilled? Is it 2010? 2025? 2050?
> 
> I also could have sworn that within the last 72 hours you trashed me for saying Orlando's cap situation in 2007 was enviable. What happened between now and then to make you change your mind about that FA class? Or do you honestly think we'll have an advantage in recruiting FAs vs. a team that has Dwight Howard, no state income tax, great weather, possibly a brand-new arena in the works (flash can weigh in on that), and $20+ million of free-and-clear Cap Space?


Well, this paxsonite wants to see improvement this summer. I can accept this small step backwards this season if it entails a large step forward this summer. As for the Magic - hell yea they're in a good spot. The mayor here is spouting off about building "new sports stadiums" (whatever exactly that entails - but it sure sounds good when it comes time to vote!). I don't reasonably see anything getting done before the summer of '07 on that front, but the promise of a new state-of-the-art facility would certainly be enticing not only for the Magic ownership, the league in general but also for prospective players. The TD Waterhouse center is really pretty small and it's in a crappy neighborhood and parking sucks. No state income tax. It's still pretty easy to get around, land is still relatively inexpensive and the area is booming. So, yea, the Magic are looking pretty good in a couple of years - they just got to weather the storm.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Sure, the Magic have money to spend on Pietrus or TJ Ford. Good for them.


:laugh:

Yup, the Magic have money to spend on Pietrus or TJ Ford. We'll actually have to give up members of our Core and other Assets to get them. 

Nothing beats free-and-clear Cap Space for getting a restricted free agent's name on an offer sheet. Most sign-and-trades happen with the team tendering the offer sheet, not third parties.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Another Paxolyte hits the snooze button. Unbelievable.
> 
> *Quick, anybody -- can we please set a date as to when it'll be acceptable to judge the Paxson regime and have some expectations fulfilled? Is it 2010? 2025? 2050?*
> 
> I also could have sworn that within the last 72 hours you trashed me for saying Orlando's cap situation in 2007 was enviable. What happened between now and then to make you change your mind about that FA class? Or do you honestly think we'll have an advantage in recruiting FAs vs. a team that has Dwight Howard, no state income tax, great weather, possibly a brand-new arena in the works (flash can weigh in on that), and $20+ million of free-and-clear Cap Space?


In approximately one year from now. I'm not ready to crucify Pax for appearing to not be busy, especially considering that nothing too interesting was out there. McHale is still trying to feel out the KG situation, AI does nothing for us, nor does Pierce, and I want absolutely nothing to do with KMart. 

That being said, I think starting this summer to next February there will be yet another Paxson-IT showdown - for the services of KG. It's no secret that IT covets him and from Pax's comments I wouldn't be surprised if KG is really the goal. I'm willing to wait until that time to judge Paxson's reign.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

It seems abundantly clear that Paxson is willing to hold on to his players and let them develop/reach maximum value. 

My prediction for this summer is that Paxson signs one free agent to a fairly large contract, to show that he got something with the cap space, and then sit tight.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Yup, the Magic have money to spend on Pietrus or TJ Ford. We'll actually have to give up members of our Core and other Assets to get them.


Actually, we won't because we already have better players on our team.



> Nothing beats free-and-clear Cap Space for getting a restricted free agent's name on an offer sheet.


So which of the prized free agents will not be matched after Orlando hypothetically gets their name on an offer sheet. Lebron? Carmelo? Wade? Bosh? Hinrich? Please explain.



> Most sign-and-trades happen with the team tendering the offer sheet, not third parties.


Yup, just ask Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Quick, anybody -- can we please set a date as to when it'll be acceptable to judge the Paxson regime and have some expectations fulfilled? Is it 2010? 2025? 2050?


Is this summer soon enough? That's how long I'm waiting. If we don't draft well and do _something_ productive with our cap space, I'll be profoundly disappointed and my tune will change quite a bit.

For one thing, anyone is free to judge Paxson at whatever time they want and based on whatever criteria. And people who disagree are free to challenge those judgments. Seems like that's what's been happening on this board for years now. I don't get this perception, held by some people of all stripes, that their opinion isn't "allowed". It's not like pro-Pax or anti-Pax people are running the board exclusively. Sometimes I feel like there were people who had judged Paxson as soon as the Rose/AD deal went down, and are eager to portray every subsequent move he makes (or doesn't make, in some cases) in a "sky is falling/Pax should be fired" light and nothing he or the team does short of winning a championship _yesterday_ is ever good enough, or even GOOD. Obviously that's an unfair generalization to make, but I admit that sometimes I get that impression anyway. And the obvious counter to that is that there are some people who would defend Paxson if he was caught on video murdering someone. There's truth to that too, but I look at Pax's record so far and wonder why it's so unreasonable to be giving the guy some benefit of the doubt (within reason, anyway). He rebuilt a flawed roster in one season, we made the playoffs, and despite a regrettable step backward this season we still could make them again and have several tools at our disposal to improve this offseason. I'm not saying Paxson is the Stephen Hawking of GMs here, but in my view he's done a lot of things right so far. 

We're an average team right now, and I am disappointed by that. Maybe there were trades that could have been made that would have improved us today and Pax didn't make them - I'm a tad disappointed that he didn't get anything done at all, even on the margins. On the other hand, I think anything short of a Garnett-for-Piatkowski slam dunk trade would have been criticized by at least some people. When DaBullz says "this laundry list of players were available", I don't find that particularly moving because that statement conveniently ignores a litany of factors - how much it would take to get them, most importantly - seemingly to get a dig in on Paxson. Garnett and Pierce are fantastic players I'd love for us to have, but history has already proven that they can't win all by themselves. I wouldn't deal for them unless we are able to hang on to some of our best players, and that requirement (which Pax apparently shares) makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to get a deal done.

OK, I'm done rambling.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Actually, we won't because we already have better players on our team.


And Orlando has Dwight Howard, who is better than our entire team put together in the long haul (IMO).



> So which of the prized free agents will not be matched after Orlando hypothetically gets their name on an offer sheet. Lebron? Carmelo? Wade? Bosh? Hinrich? Please explain.


See above. They don't need LeBron or Wade. You think Sterling's going to match a near-max offer for Chris Kaman? You think Paxdorf matches a near-max offer for Hinrich? It would kill Cuban not to match a near-max offer for Josh Howard, but I bet he wouldn't. 

However slight the chance is that LeBron or Wade or Bosh would leave their current team, Orlando has a much better shot of landing them than we do. They've got Dwight Howard, they'll probably have a brand-new building in the works, they've got no state income tax, and they've got warm weather (for the record: I think Chicago is one of the world's truly great cities, and it's crazy to me that FAs would rather play in warm-weather backwaters than there, but that's the reality of it).

And if those elite guys stay put, Orlando's chip stack is too big for us to compete with. You can turn down your nose at Pietrus and Ford, but your "wait till next year (again)!" plan has us competing head-to-head with Orlando for the best of the available FAs. They'll have an overwhelming advantage toward getting the guys they want.



> Yup, just ask Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford.


I'm confused. One minute, these two are the prime examples of Isiah's Folly -- no other team in the league had even a passing interest in them. Now they're being held up as hope for a third party landing a desirable RFA in a sign-and-trade?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Is this summer soon enough? That's how long I'm waiting. If we don't draft well and do _something_ productive with our cap space, I'll be profoundly disappointed and my tune will change quite a bit.


Let me reiterate that I fully expect an improvement next season based on using our draft picks and signing a couple of free agents with the available cap space. I am by no means giving Paxson a free pass this summer (making ScottMay's wonderful response all the more thoughtful), and if the Bulls aren't a better team in 06-07, then Paxson has not done his job. My point was in response to, what I thought, was the expectation that a consolidation trade for a star player must be completed this summer.

By the way, lost in all this trade talk is the possibility that our team becomes a contender just with our current core guys and the additions in free agency/draft. This would of course require some patience, apparently a dirty word around here.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Just to add my 2 cents, I think Paxson is lying -- or telling a half-truth -- when he says he didn't consider trading his core. My guess is that Paxson did not consider trading his core players to anyone who called him, but I would not be surprised if he called Boston or Minnesota looking for a star, and you know to get that discussion started, someone in your core must be offered. We know for sure he was talking to McHale anyway about a minor trade that broke down but warrented an extension of the trade deadline. 

I think Paxson is going to try the same thing this summer to start with, to trade for Garnett, Pierce, Bosh, maybe Kobe if something goes wrong in LA. Approaching the deadline, I heard several times that the first two at least would not move in February, but the offseason was anybody's guess. We know fans react negatively to conceding a season while a low playoff seed is in reach (White Flag Trade). Maybe if Philly, Boston, Minny, and others really stay in the tank will Paxson be willing to deal their stars. Paxson will be in good position to land one. 

Whether that makes sense or whether it will happen is another matter.

But saving money for 07 doesn't even make sense unless we trade Kirk before then. We won't have enough money unless we do major consolidation. If we don't look like, at least on paper, we're a much improved team for tipoff of the 06-07 season, I'll be pissed.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> (for the record: I think Chicago is one of the world's truly great cities, and it's crazy to me that FAs would rather play in warm-weather backwaters than there, but that's the reality of it).


Hey! I resemble that remark! Orlando's not all that bad. I think it's a great place to raise a family, but if you're looking for a cosmopolitan, happening place to be, Orlando ain't it.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> There has been a lot of blasting/supporting of Paxson about what he was or was not trying to do leading up to the trade deadline. Well, assuming you believe what he says publicly (which I know many don't), here is a pretty clear statement about what he tried to do:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but when you are the GM of a team that is now in its second losing season out of three, there is something extremely pretentious about presupposing, even implicitly, that your way it the "right way." And so what does he mean? We're going to keep bringing people in based primarily on character, since often it is a choice between character and talent (yes in a perfect world a player has both, but most of the time a player has a significantly higher degree of one or the other). I think that is a reasonable interpretation of what he means. 

My overwhelming question is, how do you achieve balance that way. Look, when this team had no jib, I was ALL FOR the Jamal Crawford trade! Why? Because if you're choosing between talent and jib (assuming, like I said, that usually you will have to choose), I have no preference! That's right! There is nothing preferable to me about a player like Eddy Curry in and of himself. *MY PREFERENCE IS BALANCE*. It always will be. So back during the 2003-04 debacle, I was all for moving some of our talent first guys for character (I do realize that character and talent are obviously terms I'm using to narrow down two large worlds here). We needed that then. Then last year, think about it! WE HAD BALANCE!

We had Noce, Hinrich, Duhon, Chandler and Davis who gave us the jib. Then we had Deng who was pretty evenly balanced out between both. And then on the other side we had Curry and Gordon who gave us more talent than the ability to have excellent character AND/OR be a "complete player." And it worked out great. Curry and Gordon balanced out the overall lack of explosiveness and ability to create your own shot by the first five guys I mentioned, and those five guys did all the little things to make us a complete TEAM. Now you've moved Curry and OK, I'm starting to get past the fact that the explanation that you "had to do it" just doesn't flow with me. I realize that the majority of Bulls nation feels that way, so I'll accept it for the sake of moving on. 

*That said you look at this season and we lack the balance. Gordon is doing a decent job carrying the load, but he isn't THAT talented. On some nights he can overwhelm the opposition. On other nights, his raw talent doesn't come close to the raw talent of the most special player on the other team, and those are the nights we are often in trouble ASSUMING that that team can also bring the jib. AND GUESS WHAT?! In the mecca beyond the great line of separation known as the "PLAYOFFS" the cold reality is that most any top 4 team has at least one player as special as Gordon AND the ability to bring just as much jib to the table as we do.

So how do you regain that balance. Well there are two methods in my estimation. 1. Acquire a player that brings character and jib. You get a guy like Jordan, O'neal, Duncan, or even Garnett, Brand, Wade, Kobe etc. and now its like acquiring two of our best players, because you get high scores in talent and jib all in one player. Having a player like Brand is really like having Chandler and Curry's strengths in one player with ONE SALARY. This is why I say that paying Garnett $20 Mill is really like paying him 10, if that makes sense. Obviously this is significantly harder to acquire than the second method, which is:

2. Go find a player who is significantly higher in talent than jib, but has a minimum acceptable amount of jib for him to be OK on this team. The margin of error is obviously much higher with this method. Because like the Bulls of last year or in 2003-04 you're counting on MORE PLAYERS to pan out and more players to not have a career threatening injury/ailment (Curry, Jay WILLIAMS!). The team that thrives under Dwyane Wade, a secondary star and 10 role players is going to be counting on two guys to stay healthy so that all is not lost, whereas the Bulls will always be counting on about 4-5 guys to stay healthy for all not to be lost. 

To me you can look at the stats for this team and it will say that our offense is better, but I think it has more to do with us having better defense, passing and ability to set the tempo than we did last year. We play at a more frenetic pace, which is going to artificially raise your offensive statistics and then show regression on your defensive numbers. So acquiring more defense, character, jib etc. is redundant at this point. That's not to say that you want a guy who has none of these things, but honestly if a guy was underwhelming but SUFFICIENT in these categories, I could live with it, if he offered more explosion and offensive punch, and MAYBE the ability to get near as good offense as we get now while SLOWING THE TEMPO.* 

I just feel, and it is MY OWN OPINION, that Paxson makes comments like this and it justifies me thinking that he writes certain guys off. To me, I FEEL, again IMO, that he doesn't even fully analyze some players because he sees a character red light and just says "f it." It's like a chess player who sees another good chess player sitting at the table and instead of trying to figure out how beat him, just decides not to play cause he doesn't want to lose. 

To me this is the easy way out. ANYONE can get decent results out of veterans, 4 year college players and high jib coachable guys. THATS THE EASY PART. The hard part is getting monster contributions out of young guys, out of guys with less pedigree, and out of guys maybe with less character or maybe who dont jive with the overall philosophy of your organization. THIS is what separates the Paxsons from the Dumars IMO.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> (for the record: I think Chicago is one of the world's truly great cities, and it's crazy to me that FAs would rather play in warm-weather backwaters than there, but that's the reality of it).


since I just wrote a mildly confrontational response to another of your posts, I'll just go ahead and express my full agreement with you on this point, at least. I've come across this phenomenon quite a bit as someone who grew up in the Chicago area and moved to Southern California for college. There are just some people who would rather live on an empty field with 75 degree weather and sun than a lively urban hub with bad weather. This is especially true among people who grew up in warm-weather climates. They flatly refuse to consider living anywhere that doesn't have good weather. I've known a lot of people who think the weather in the San Francisco bay area (not just SF itself, which I admit has lousy weather in the summer) too cold to live in! It's just a matter of taste, of course, but it does sometimes boggle my mind.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> And Orlando has Dwight Howard, who is better than our entire team put together in the long haul (IMO).


So what does that have to do with our need for Pietrus and Ford?



> See above. They don't need LeBron or Wade. You think Sterling's going to match a near-max offer for Chris Kaman? You think Paxdorf matches a near-max offer for Hinrich? It would kill Cuban not to match a near-max offer for Josh Howard, but I bet he wouldn't.


Hinrich and Howard will stay with their current teams, I'm pretty confident in saying that. I don't know about Chris Kaman, but regardless of his status, he's not the type of player that would have me trumping the strength of the '07 free agents versus the '06 class.



> However slight the chance is that LeBron or Wade or Bosh would leave their current team, Orlando has a much better shot of landing them than we do.


Don't agree with that at all. I think those players will either re-sign with their current teams or force the team to trade them for the best available offer. If Bosh, for example, wants to get out of Toronto, the worst he can do is actually sign an offer sheet with the Magic. All that's going to do is have the Raptors match Orlando's contract offer, making Bosh their property again. If the player leaves the team, it won't be just on his terms, that's for sure.

(Didn't you say as much, what with your claims of 24+ teams of going after Bosh if he becomes available, when his name was brougth up here as a possible target?)



> I'm confused. One minute, these two are the prime examples of Isiah's Folly -- no other team in the league had even a passing interest in them. Now they're being held up as hope for a third party landing a desirable RFA in a sign-and-trade?


Well, I was just using that as an example of two players who were acquired in sign-and-trades by a team without cap space. Feel free to interpret that as you wish.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Alright. After reading a very good thread, thanks to the contributions of such indispensables as VF, Ron Cey, MikeDC, Pippenatorade, Fl Flash, DMD, F-steiner, and ScottMay......I have to say:

I've never been a big fan of harshly criticizing......or praising........a GM based on trades that he doesn't make, since you're ultimately passing a stern judgement on an event that didn't happen that's dependent on a lot of variables that you have no way of completely knowing about. However, after (over?) analyzing Paxson's comments, I'm okay with his philosophy of keeping our young guys together, and then hoping to cash in on the 'flexibility' we've acquired to hopefully add a marquee player to our group without giving up much of what we already have. He's got a group of young players that he likes and think will get better, and he thinks he's got a shot at adding a player or two that can put us over the top, and the ammunition to do it. Cool. 

However, I'll agree with MikeDC on the point that if he really didn't even _attempt_ to gauge everyone's value on the team, he wasn't doing a very good job in some respects. Even if you don't have any immediate plans to trade someone, I think it's always a good idea to keep discussing things since **** happens, and even the best thought out plans have to be adjusted from time to time and talking about guys now, at the very least keeps open lines of communication in case _either team_ involved in the discussion finds itself in an unexpected situation, and in the case of guys like KG, Kobe, or Bosh, at least plant the seed of an idea that something might be possible. I don't imagine trades 'just happen' out of thin air, but rather, that they come to fruition through a gradual process that can begin days, weeks, or even months before the trade actually happens, so in that respect, working the phones now is still a good idea, even if you don't think you really want to do anything drastic. 

With that being said though, I would think that John Paxson didn't spend the last month just sitting, waiting for the phone to ring, and then steadfastly hanging up on everyone who mentioned the names Ben, Kirk, Luol, Tyson and Chris and doing nothing more, like some have implied. I think if I were a GM in John Paxson's position, the best thing to do would be to work the phones a lot for the reasons I mentioned, and from a PR point of view, openly state that you were never looking to trade anyone and that you like the group of guys that you have, because I'm not sure how just opening up to the public about how you were looking to get rid of one of your important players when they're about to enter the stretch run of the season and fighting for a playoff berth is a productive way to use the media at such a point in the season. I have no idea what Paxson actually did during the dog days of the trade deadline, but the fact that he requested for an extension w/ the league would imply that he actually was interacting with other teams seeing if he could do something, although I have no idea what or to what extent.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So what does that have to do with our need for Pietrus and Ford?


Forget Pietrus and Ford -- plug in the names of whatever 2007 FAs you think would help the team. If the Magic want them as well, they'll have a considerable advantage over us in signing them. 



> Hinrich and Howard will stay with their current teams, I'm pretty confident in saying that. I don't know about Chris Kaman, but regardless of his status, he's not the type of player that would have me trumping the strength of the '07 free agents versus the '06 class.


There is no way Paxdorf would pay Hinrich a near-max deal. None. If they don't wrap him up with an extension this year, he's gone, imo. Cuban has too many mouths to feed and has a nine-digit extension to give to Nowitzki the same summer. 

As for Kaman, if you redid the 2003 draft, I bet most GMs would go 1. LeBron 2. Bosh 3. Wade 4. Kaman. He's a very, very good player who'd be great to pair with Chandler (and he's the absolute perfect complement to Howard).



> Don't agree with that at all. I think those players will either re-sign with their current teams or force the team to trade them for the best available offer. If Bosh, for example, wants to get out of Toronto, the worst he can do is actually sign an offer sheet with the Magic. All that's going to do is have the Raptors match Orlando's contract offer, making Bosh their property again. If the player leaves the team, it won't be just on his terms, that's for sure.


Any number of things can happen in restricted free agency. I have freely acknowledged that it's a huge long-shot for those three particular guys to leave their current teams. I think the best chance to get one of them, however slim, is to get their signature on a max offer sheet. Orlando can do that, we can't.



> Well, I was just using that as an example of two players who were acquired in sign-and-trades by a team without cap space. Feel free to interpret that as you wish.


This is where the "24 teams" thing comes in. I have no problem admitting that no other team was willing to give Curry or Crawford the contracts the Knicks did (although there's a caveat in Curry's case). With LeBron, Wade, or Bosh, there'll be a feeding frenzy, and I fail to believe that A. Any of them would demand "Chicago or Bust" and B. A package of Al Harrington and Andrea Bargnani would be the most attractive package offered up for them.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Has any RFA *ever* been signed-and-traded to a team that signed him an offer sheet?

I can't think of a single instance where that was the case.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Has any RFA *ever* been signed-and-traded to a team that signed him an offer sheet?
> 
> I can't think of a single instance where that was the case.


Joe Johnson?

Not many of the big-time RFAs have gotten away. Lamar Odom was allowed to walk outright. Most of them are extended at the earliest opportunity (Amare, Yao, Gasol, JRich, etc.).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Joe Johnson?
> 
> Not many of the big-time RFAs have gotten away. Lamar Odom was allowed to walk outright. Most of them are extended at the earliest opportunity (Amare, Yao, Gasol, JRich, etc.).


Maybe KMart as well. He was at least threatening to sign an offer sheet.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Joe Johnson?
> 
> Not many of the big-time RFAs have gotten away. Lamar Odom was allowed to walk outright. Most of them are extended at the earliest opportunity (Amare, Yao, Gasol, JRich, etc.).


That would be my thought. Actually, I don't think there can be a RFA that signs an offer sheet and then gets signed and traded. Once the offer sheet is signed, only two things can occur - match or let go. I think the offer sheet is showed to the RFA's team (prior to signing) and then they can either work out a sign and trade or let the guy sign the sheet.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Thanks, I'm not 100% sure that Johnson ever signed an offer sheet, but it seems like he did.

And KMart never signed an offer sheet, they worked out a trade first.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Another Paxolyte hits the snooze button. Unbelievable.
> 
> Quick, anybody -- can we please set a date as to when it'll be acceptable to judge the Paxson regime and have some expectations fulfilled? Is it 2010? 2025? 2050?
> 
> I also could have sworn that within the last 72 hours you trashed me for saying Orlando's cap situation in 2007 was enviable. What happened between now and then to make you change your mind about that FA class? Or do you honestly think we'll have an advantage in recruiting FAs vs. a team that has Dwight Howard, no state income tax, great weather, possibly a brand-new arena in the works (flash can weigh in on that), and $20+ million of free-and-clear Cap Space?


I'm not hitting the snooze button. In fact, I'm not one of the people around here drooling over the 2007 FA class. I only mentioned it before because some think 2007 is the chance to make the so-called "consolidation trade". Sign and trade is just another option out there.

I think the Bulls could field a really good team NEXT YEAR, provided we use the draft picks/free agent dollars wisely. I'm just not expecting a championship contender out of the gates, sort of like Cleveland with their major acquisitions this past summer. I'd be very pleased if we end up with nearly 50 wins and a high playoff seeding next season. Unfortunately only 1 team can win the championship though...it may be a few more years, so let's not kid ourselves that it can happen next season, or even the season after. I just want a team that can go deep into the playoffs and give me something worth watching (with championship aspirations in the foreseeable future). I'm hopeful and optimistic that NEXT YEAR could be a significant leap for us.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Forget Pietrus and Ford -- plug in the names of whatever 2007 FAs you think would help the team.


That's the point, the number and quality of free agents that help the Bulls in 2007 isn't all that different from the available guys in 2006. Outside of Kaman, Pietrus and Ford are probably the best of the lot.



> There is no way Paxdorf would pay Hinrich a near-max deal. None. If they don't wrap him up with an extension this year, he's gone, imo.


This is based on your slanted view of "Paxdorf" so I won't be able to change your mind. I think they would re-sign him at that price, although I don't ever see it getting to that point.



> Cuban has too many mouths to feed and has a nine-digit extension to give to Nowitzki the same summer.


Van Horn, Stackhouse, Finley, Eschmeyer, Abdul-Wahad, and Bradley (that's around $47M) will be off or coming off Cuban's payroll by that time. There's no chance he let's Howard get away, even after re-signing Nowitzki and Terry, who figure to make roughly the same amount of money per year as they are now.



> As for Kaman, if you redid the 2003 draft, I bet most GMs would go 1. LeBron 2. Bosh 3. Wade 4. Kaman. He's a very, very good player who'd be great to pair with Chandler (and he's the absolute perfect complement to Howard).


He went 6th that year, and I'm assuming you've forgotten Carmelo, so moving him up one spot from that position isn't really that big of a deal. FWIW, I'd rather have Hinrich. Again though, is Chris Kaman at 11/9 a much better player than Drew Gooden, Nazr Mohammed, or Al Harrington? No IMO.

And if we're discussing this in the context of the Bulls, why would Paxdorf give out a near max offer to Chris Kaman when they wouldn't do the same for Kirk Hinrich? So really, wouldn't the Bulls be better off planning for the supposed weaker free agents in 2006, at least according to your view?



> With LeBron, Wade, or Bosh, there'll be a feeding frenzy, and I fail to believe that A. Any of them would demand "Chicago or Bust" and *B. A package of Al Harrington and Andrea Bargnani would be the most attractive package offered up for them*.


It's very difficult to take you seriously when you come up with exaggerations such as that. It was a clever line, congratulations.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'm assuming you've forgotten Carmelo


No, I didn't forget Carmelo. I'd take Kaman over Marshmelo in a second.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

bullsville said:


> Thanks, I'm not 100% sure that Johnson ever signed an offer sheet, but it seems like he did.


According to the **** FAQ



> If the team matches an offer sheet, they cannot trade the player in a sign-and-trade arrangement


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36

So Johnson didn't sign the offer sheet.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> According to the **** FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The passage you've cited says that a player can't be signed-and-traded once the team decides to MATCH an offer sheet (I have no idea what that means, procedurally). 



> ESPN.com reported that Johnson told Suns managing owner Robert Sarver this week that he would rather Phoenix not match the Hawks' five-year, $70 million offer sheet.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0730sunsnb0730.html

In either case, it's academic -- whether the offer sheet is signed or not, it's the ability to offer the offer sheet that's meaningful.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> In any case, his refusal to even discuss his core guys doesn't make a lot of sense to me.




I wouldn't take him at his word at that 

There is a certain "postioning" that is required to be taken when discussing these matters and it achieves no purpose once the deadline has passed to concede that there were some elements of your core you were prepared to part with if the player(s) you wanted became available




> [size=-2]Here's a quote from Pax in the thread Miz started. "I do think in the summer, that's when teams try to make over their roster more than any other time," Paxson said. "We'll have discussions with a lot of teams this summer about players who are under current contract, not just the free-agent market."
> 
> Assuming he's not just talking about trading for some slug, the core guys are going to have to at least be discussed.




Maybe . Maybe not 

For example ( and I just use this as an example ) let's say the Knicks pick is one of the top 2 picks , can : 

*Toronto really turn the #2 pick, Jamal Magliore ( using our cap space to facilitate his contract demands ) and Chris Duhon for Chris Bosh , Eric Williams and Mike James ? *

The relevance of Magliore using us to get home to Canada is that the Raptors are at $37M before they sign their draft picks ( of which they will have 2 ) which puts them at say $41M . 

They will not have enough gun powder to sign Magliore to the contract he wants knowing that they still have a max contract to give Bosh . Bosh and Villanueva are power forwards and dealing Bosh for a true Center ( and a Canadian ) in Magliore in addition to being in position to take either Gay or Morrison as their 3 has to be awfully tempting 

Paxson conceded that his picks were put on the table and I think we will use them first and foremost as a dealing point and if he has to add a player to get THE player he wants , whilst I think it would pain him to lose a Duhon or Hinrich , I believe he would do the business if it came along 






> So if you're willing to do it in the summer, why not do it now?


Takes 2 to tango

And he's right ..most teams don't want the disruption mid season and doing it on the fly . They want to sit down at season's end and do a proper post mortem where they have less disruption to strategise 

He can't deal if the players that he may covet on other team's aren't out in the open 

And even if says "Hey Kev, I'll give you Tyson , Kirk , TT and the Knicks pick for KG " who is to say that he doesn't set benchmarks / standing offers in those conversations but if the other side ain't interested , then hey there not interested right now 

BTW , just as an aside, in the case of KG, the Wolves will trade KG to where he wants to go and if KG wants to go to New York ( why he would though ? ) then KG's going to New York 

Personally I think we have better assets to offer and with those assets we retain he would be more a winner here in Chicago than New York 

And if he can't get past his Chicago hate for "what they did to the dynasty" then the guy is more of an ignorant putz than what I already consider him to be .

He can play basketball though god bless him 



> If anything, doing it now might have several advantages:
> 
> * Our picks seem unlikely to get more valuable than their expected positions now. If anything they'll drop a little bit.


Disagree quite strongly with this 

Come tourney time and the stars emerge and the hype goes into overdrive coinciding with playoff disappointments for the teams full of stars or a star that have consistently been expected to do better and haven't ..then that's what gives draft picks and cap space to take out the trash all the more power which I think everyone is really underestimating


> * There might be one or two GMs out there who still think Sweetney can play.


I think Chicago is the last stop for Sweets unfortunately 

I have endorsed him and think he has game but he can't /won't get properly conditioned and if doesn't do it in Chicago's boot camp type of regime then I can't imagine anyone putting any worth on him as opposed to fill in and an expiring contract next season in a trade 


> * We're obviously better off by trading, a core player plus Thomas now than just paying a core player in an uneven trade later later when we're under the cap. In the first situation, we're at least using that money producitively, in the latter we just waste the $5M or so we're giving Thomas to sit on his ***.


Again it takes 2 to tango and there is absolutely no point in trading TT now just so as not waste what we pay him to do nothing just so we get "someone" back 

It has to be a particular someone rather than just acquisition for acquistion sake 

And if Pax couldn't get one his targets now using TT's contract and draft picks and a core player 
than so be it . 



> * Any deal like this is going to be pretty big. It's quite possibly going to create holes in some places and logjams in others. By making a trade sooner, you have quite a bit more time to evaluate your team needs and make changes.


As I said earlier , I agree with Pax when he says you have a much better chance of evaluating all that stuff over the summer when teams become clearer in terms of what direction they are moving in 

Look at the trades that went down..problem childs in Artest and Francis and the rest of it was all scrubsville with nothing really of note 



> * Finally, you can't do anything if you don't try. Saying "well, there were no trades available" doesn't mean a lot if you don't offer anything. And even if your trade doesn't go down by the deadline, there's some value in planting the seed of the idea. Suppose the Bulls made Kevin McHale aware of what they'd be willing to part with to get Garnett. Maybe McHale decides not to trade Garnett yet, but he pays a bit more attention to the Bulls' players over the rest of the season. When the season's over and he actually trades Garnett, the first guy he calls is us. Point is, if you aren't active and realistic in discussions, it's hard to know what's out there. what people say is "available" is often less than people think, but sometimes it's more. It depends on when and how you ask and what you'd offer back. If when, how, and what you offer are never, with no subtlety, and nothing, then there's not going to be much on the market for you. Other GMs might think talking to you is a little bit like talking to Elmer Fudd, however.


We don't know that these conversations and scenarios do or don't get discussed 

We only assume because we interpret a very literal statement he makes about not discussing his core , but again , what's the point of conceding this if the truth is actually quite different - particularly if we're trying to get on a roll and keep morale up for a playoff run ?

I think the reality is is that Pax has got high standards and we should be thankful to him for at least that 

But I support the idea of not just trading for any bit of dog poop , ala Isiah the trade whore , just to play the game of smoke and mirrors 

I am comfortable that Pax has his targets and there are people that we currently have that he is prepared to give up to get what he wants - and I also trust that other GM's know what they may be able to get with what they're prepared to give 

To date he really hasn't been bent over on any trade he's done and thus far we have benefitted from those 3 principal trades he has effected 

I'm not a Paxophyle before I get labelled as such - just trying to give a rational /balanced view of where I see the reality of it 

You know we won 47 games last year and we will likely win say 40'ish this year - a slight regression but not really.

Given our obstacles we're still a likely 1st round playoff team at the moment that will get bounced and will still have the star factor and other pieces to add 

And because of these obstacles I think its a creditable result that we have treaded water at least for this year and largely held our ground - and we haven't buckled to pressure . We still have draft picks and pieces to add in free agency and /or trade , THIS OFFSEASON , that I am comfortable will see us return to a late 40's to 50 win team and progression to being a legit 2nd round team 

It will still be a yooung team with growth potential , and that organic growth -plus some element of eventual consolidation will, IMO , make us an Eastern Conference contender within the next 3 seasons 

People are generally impatient and looking for the quick fix 

Kukoc4ever was talking in another thread about how no one in the bars around Chicago cares about the Bulls or doesn't talk about them and "the church like" atmosphere at games .

Why ?

Because we're boring with no big names 

In the minds of these people we get the buzz back by having the supastaws ( and in mind ) a certain element of superficiality that goes along with that 

What's the difference between KG's Wolves, Pierce's Celtics, Iverson's Sixers or TMac's Rockets ?

And us ?

Not a lot in practical reality

Everyone of these teams will just miss the playoffs or be first round fodder

But hey ! Those teams look good and give the fans something to love and look forward to while they continue in their mediocrity which ultimately declines into futility 

Yeah we're mediocre but how anyone cannot say we're going the other way is beyond me 

Yeah we don't have a true star yet ..but why do we understate and disregard our own players worth so much - in terms of where they're at right now and the benefits of organic growth that come from sticking with this core ( with a preparedness that we may lose one or two guys along the way in a consolidation or needs fit trade ) 

Is the bling really that important ?

Does it actually enhance the capacity for this team to be a pretty good team within what we've already got and by adding the right pieces around it or perhaps consolidating some of it if the right opportunties come along ?

I think we discard and don't consider properly what this team is and what it might become , quite simply , because its not bling enough for the great unwashed masses


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I should also point out that the relevance of Eric Williams and Mike James in the Bosh trade is that they are player options that expire in 2007 when Chris Bosh's max contract kicks in ..so the trade basically pans out as * Jamal Magliore and the #2 pick for Chris Bosh *

By including Williams and James in this deal Toronto would keep their salary ( including their draft picks ) at around $41M which would give them around $7M to spend this summer in free agency

Although , if they didn't spend it they would enter into 2007 free agency (with another lottery pick in 2007 )with a core of :

*

Magliore
Villanueva
Gay ( our Knicks pick )
Redick ( Their 2006 pick )
Duhon 


2007 Draft Pick
Bonner
Graham 
Calderon

Alvin Williams

*



The cost of that core is $40M for 10 players and there would be approximately $10M to spend in free agency in 2007 which would extend out to around $14M in 2008 when Alvin Williams contract is finally off the books and allowing for incremental salary increases and another 1st round pick

So with this type of cap room and young talent they would good capacity to add another max player outright or perhaps two if they consolidated some of their draft picks/talent


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> I'm not hitting the snooze button. In fact, I'm not one of the people around here drooling over the 2007 FA class. I only mentioned it before because some think 2007 is the chance to make the so-called "consolidation trade". Sign and trade is just another option out there.
> 
> I think the Bulls could field a really good team NEXT YEAR, provided we use the draft picks/free agent dollars wisely.


I was coming to this thread basically to write the same thing since "paxolytes" are basically being accused of not caring about winning next season. 

When I said that I expect that the consolidation trade may not go down until next summer, I didn't mean that I didn't expect the Bulls to be good during the interim.

I fully expect and demand that Paxson - assuming he doesn't make the "big trade" on draft day or prior to the season - use the the draft picks and capspace wisely to improve the team signficantly in both the short and the long term.

I'm just saying that the "final" step - the consolidation trade - shouldn't be rushed into. Like I've been writing lately, I'm not a big fan of "speed trading" to build. Thats only a good idea if you are trying to destroy. The Bulls are past that stage. 

I expect the Bulls to compete at a high level next season.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I need to keep up with the threads a bit more. Try reading this whole thread at once. Pippenatorade, always very interesting stuff, but can you use shorter bullet points?

(Anyone who knows me knows I'm pot and he's kettle and we're black.)

*1. I'm a Paxolyte, if a Paxolyte is someone who thinks rebuilding a team from an eyesore and really completely terrible to a respectable basketball team with a future should take more than 2 years.* I do NOT want to be a team that tastes the possibility of getting to the Finals and then gets denied. In recent memory, the Celtics have been that team. Portland, also, during their tenure of perennial playoff appearances, have VERY few Finals appearances and no rings to show.

The 15- and 17-win seasons just don't seem like that long ago in my head. How much fun was that? We CAN be back there much quicker than we all realize. Very strong teams have just imploded. The Magic were decent, playoff seeds. Trade T-Mac and they've never been the same. The Heat were a #2 seed with the Jones-Grant-Mashburn combo. An injury hits Mash, the team chemistry gets off kilter, and the team tailspun into one of the worst teams in the league all in ONE SEASON. It CAN all go away, lightning quick. Those are risks that can be hedged while still having a definite upward trajectory and not being stagnant. I do believe that it's what Pax is doing, for the most part.

Frankly, in a year that was supposed to be a "step back" by many predictions, why are people so riled up that we're performing exactly as expected? I just don't see too many other teams making meteoric rises to the top that haven't been building for a long time (the Clippers have turned in a right direction a few seasons ago, for instance, but it's only coming to fruition now).

I, along with many others here, sat through much worse times under JK. I can bear this "right way" stuff a little bit longer.

*2. This offseason is important, but its effects may not be felt until next season's trade deadline.* I don't have a blanket thumbs up or thumbs down for Pax as a whole, but I DO have a value judgment to issue for this *stage* of rebuilding. And my verdict for that will be the deadline in 2007. By that time, we'll really be with our backs to the wall to either commit to the TEEMING young assets we've got (hopefully they'll be worth committing to them) by not trading them by the deadline (S&T for RFA's in the offseason always gets us fleeced, so the likelihood is that we'll extend them), or we'll trade them to consolidate.

If we sign them, they enter the dreaded BYC land and it's basically too long to wait until we can try and trade their big contracts before then, although we won't be completely out of the trade circle. That's another phase, though; again, to measure just this current phase of accumulating assets and doing something with them, I have to say that the true "make or break" will be in 2007, when we'll be really forced because of the rookie scale contracts and because of Noch's contract to pull the trigger or sit and wait.

*3. The point of our own players breaking out and becoming good is not false hope.* Why? Because most of them are only in their *SECOND YEAR IN THE LEAGUE.* There's countless guys that didn't get good until their second or even THIRD years in the league. Examples:

- I'm obviously biased, but I see Ben Gordon scoring a shade under 20 ppg, 45% from the field, 43% from the arc, 3.4 apg, 3.0 rpg and 1.0 spg in 33 mpg as a starter for this team, during which time we have been playing .500 ball. He has disappeared in VERY few games, scoring single digits only TWICE since the new year began, over which period we've gone 12-12. He's notably improved in his weakest areas: turnovers, assists, steals, free throw attempts. And as far as I can tell, *he's not even close to being done just yet.* Tell me what player we can easily acquire out there that can do that for us.

- In addition, Nocioni has stepped up his play this season, even though he hit a cold streak in the midst of that. 

- Deng looks lost in our team sometimes, but he's got a really tough role to define on our team, since his final form will probably look very much like a do-it-all guy. It's incredibly hard for a young player to take on that role, and his frustration has been visible. Even with all that, Deng's improved in FG%, 3pt%, rebounding, turnovers, and scoring. He's not yet 21 years old. 

- Hinrich is still Hinrich, even if once in a while he forgets. 

- And Chandler's recent play makes him the perfect "2" in a 1-2 frontcourt punch, the 1 not yet a member of our team.

- We also have some depth, with guys like Duhon, Songaila, and Noch giving us huge boosts off the bench.

So it's really hard for me to hang my head, since I can point to a handful of close games which, had they gone the other way, would have put us OVER .500 at this very moment. We were literally one play away from wins in SEVERAL games; does it really take a massive makeover at this stage of our still developing team's growth to make those losses into wins?

Another way to put it: If we were sitting at 27-26 instead of at 24-29, in 7th place in the East today, I doubt we'd have nearly so much excitement over what Pax did or didn't do (maybe I'm wrong there, knowing the activity on this board, which is what I love here).

Staying the course, indeed, is not so bad. We're still VERY young; we have many years to come to make our move. Let's not get jumpy, and let's do it when it's right and our window can stay open for a long time.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

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


----------

