# KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lount,1,7687617.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

"He played great for us. I'm shocked. He's just a great guy, a friend. I'm going to miss him. He has been in this league a long time. And he's a guy that everyone on this team can honestly say they really like."

Making the move even more painful for Blount is that players need to be signed by March 1 to be included on that team's playoff roster. Thus, it's likely Blount will have to wait until this summer to sign with another team.

Management used such phrases as "numbers game" and "roster flexibility" to explain the move, which will result in the signing of 6-foot-10-inch forward Paul Shirley later this week.

But those words won't appease Blount's teammates, who believe his impact went far beyond his modest statistical averages of 4.5 points and 4.5 rebounds.
 

This is worse than I possibly imagined.

Furthermore, general manager John Paxson and coach Scott Skiles constantly talk about creating an environment of professionalism, accountability and work ethic. Doesn't waiving Blount fly in the face of that?

"I don't think so at all," Paxson said. "It's unfortunate it has to be a veteran at this point. But it becomes a numbers thing. I appreciate everything Corie has done. He has a good relationship with players. But we needed a roster spot. It's pretty simple."

The Bulls still believe they can include Marcus Fizer in some deal this summer and are too thin at point guard to waive Rick Brunson. Chris Jefferies' salary is guaranteed for next season at $899,000, so he survived.
 

OK, I'm going to have to vent.

Include Fizer in a deal this summer? Excuse me, John, but he's going to be a free agent. Do we really need to sit down and go over the CBA with the Bulls GM?

John Paxson = Moron.

And they won't cut Jeffries to save a measly 900k, even though Blount earned his pay as a hard worker and solid backup?

Cheap piece of ****.

An absolutely classless and clueless move by the Bulls. Welcome to the "don't call me Shirly" era.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lount,1,7687617.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> "He played great for us. I'm shocked. He's just a great guy, a friend. I'm going to miss him. He has been in this league a long time. And he's a guy that everyone on this team can honestly say they really like."
> ...



:laugh: I really dont know what to say  We cut a contributor on a team starving for them to save a few bucks .I just dont understand why they are keeping jeffries around .

This only strengthens my stance on the Bulls not trying to pay anyone until AFTER the Bulls start winning thus meaning we will be on the losing ends of things for a long time .This franchise is cheap .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh: I really dont know what to say  We cut a contributor on a team starving for them to save a few bucks .I just dont understand why they are keeping jeffries around .


I think we understand it, we just don't like it at all. 

Cheap.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lount,1,7687617.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> Include Fizer in a deal this summer? Excuse me, John, but he's going to be a free agent. Do we really need to sit down and go over the CBA with the Bulls GM?


Sign and trade.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

This is so totally pissweak it is mind boggling 

The difference between Jeffries and Blount's salary is $700K for next season 

Bulls Mgt is saying that we would rather pocket $700K than cut a dickwad like Jeffries and keep a productive back up Center/PF who has the respect of everyone on the team and is truly a "glue guy"

And this was on whim over the last two days ?

They could not have done it 3 days ago giving Corie a chance to catch on elsewhere for the season 

What a bunch of classless,clueless punks

Pathetic


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Sign and trade.


Go back and check out the frequency of sign and trades. They don't happen too often, and for a reason. They take a lot of agreement from at least three different parties. Then factor in what teams will be willing to pay Fizer and what they'd be willing to give us. Of course we can try, but the same factors that have been discussed here that make a sign and trade of Crawford unlikely hold true for Fizer as well, but augmented by the fact that he's been godawful this year.

Although it could be technically possible, when all the realities are considered it's not the kind of thing that really ought to even be thought about by our GM. As far as I can tell, we'd have been better off by just cutting Fizer instead of Blount.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Sign and trade.


Actually it is unlikely Fizer will receive more than his qualifying offer so I don't think BYC issues will apply making a straight sign and trade possible 

But given we could not trade him at the deadline for say Chucky Atkins or Ely/Dooling ( in that we would not accept offers ) I can't imagine his trade market is going to majestically reappear - which means in all practicality there will be no sign and trade .. and he will sign as part of someone's MLE


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually it is unlikely Fizer will receive more than his qualifying offer so I don't think BYC issues will apply making a straight sign and trade possible
> ...


Can a rat majestically slink out of a toilet?

Anyway, will be Bulls even extend a QO to Fizer? If they don't, then he becomes an unrestricted FA, right?

I ask because Fizer's QO for next year turns out to be a pretty hefty $4.9M. If Fizer has an ounce of sense, he'll simply sign the QO the minute it's offered. No other team will seek to acquire him at that price, and the Bulls would be stuck with a $5M player they don't want.

On the other hand, if the Bulls don't give a QO to Fizer, he's unrestricted and it's pretty unlikely anyone will trade anything to get someone they can probably sign outright.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Paul Shirley better be God, or atleast pretty cool and good.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> And this was on whim over the last two days ?
> 
> ...


This is how I feel. I heard Corie was maybe injured for the rest of the season though? But if not, he could have very well have signed with the Lakers or Spurs and been much more appreciated if Paxson hadn't tried to screw him like this.

I haven't like a thing Paxson has done as GM. Some of them have worked out. Well...one of them has worked out(Kirk). The rest have been dubious at best.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Blount was injured...to what extent no one knows. And for that matter, maybe the Bulls have chosen not to reveal the extent of Blount's injury, for Blount's sake next season. The Bulls have 22 games left in the season. If he was going to miss most of them then why not free up a roster spot? As for the timing, perhaps the severity of the injury wasn't known until today. The truth is, we don't know the facts. The only thing we know as fact is that Blount will be paid through the end of the year.

Chandler is going to get more playing time over the next 22 games. That would significantly reduce Blount's playing time even if he was healthy.

Paxson claims he needs roster flexability to be able to take a look at waived NBA players and other NBDL players. With an 18-42 record, that would seem to make sense.

Lets say they waived him in time for Blount to hook on with another team and possibly make a playoff roster. If he was healthy that might be a legitimate issue. However, he's injured. And no one would have likely signed an injured player in time for him to qualify for a playoff roster anyway. So doesn't his injury really make the timing of his release a moot point?

This really is much ado about nothing.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

This is my favorite bit:

Paxson on Scottie Pippen's future.

"He has been trying to battle back," Paxson said. "*We're not cashing anything in. That's not our style.* Scottie has been invaluable in a lot of ways. He works with guys. But we all want him out on the floor. If he can play, I know he will."


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

In the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter. Blount wouldn't be getting much time in any case.

The only reason I see that Paxson decided to do it is because of the extent of Blount's injury. However, based on Blount reaction (not wanting to comment), it seems as though he thinks he could have played again this season, and his contribution to the team has been dismissed.

If that is the case, then it is a classless move.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

<IMG SRC ="http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/blount_small_0304.jpg" width="640" height="480">

Thanks for the memories 

I was going to turn this into an avatar but Petey won't let me get rid of this girl.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

This is Corey Blount we are talking about. He has made more than any of you, and he isn't very good at his profession. Stop feeling sorry for him.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> This is Corey Blount we are talking about. He has made more than any of you, and he isn't very good at his profession. Stop feeling sorry for him.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

This is the a terribly dumb move IMO, give Pax a Homer award please. Blount is a very productive player for his salary who gets along great with his teammates, understands his role and comes at a cheap price. I'm even a Cyclones fan, and I don't think we should expect Shirley to be able to contribute anything close to what Blount contributes for us (unless his development has been unbelievable since his ISU days). It's a terrible way to treat Blount for his contributions, it sends the wrong message to the guys who are here, and this treatment could make anyone who might be interested in coming here think twice.

The only excuse he could possibly have is cost cutting, but then he ruins that by saying he wants to take back salary when he gets rid of Fizer (sign & trade). Getting Shirley does not justify eliminating Blount. Shirley, I wish Pax was kidding, but unfortunately he's just earned himself a Homer award in my mind.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Go back and check out the frequency of sign and trades. They don't happen too often, and for a reason. They take a lot of agreement from at least three different parties. Then factor in what teams will be willing to pay Fizer and what they'd be willing to give us. Of course we can try, but the same factors that have been discussed here that make a sign and trade of Crawford unlikely hold true for Fizer as well, but augmented by the fact that he's been godawful this year.
> ...


Read what he said. We think we can...

Probably had some strong feelers from the trade deadline.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> This really is much ado about nothing.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lount,1,7687617.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> And that ignores the message this sends to all of the players. Work hard, play your role effectively, don't complain about variable minutes, and what do the Bulls do? They'll cut you


...if you're spectacularly untalented and have no future in the franchise.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Edited by Dan Rosenbaum


NcBullsFan, you should understand this move better then anyone else: it is pure business. There is no mercy here. But you are 100% right about timing. It was completely unprofessional from Pax...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Oh, and one other thing.

Paxson only gets one chance to make a first impression on how he treats role-playing, veteran players - the kind of guys the Bulls will need to fill in the cracks if the Bulls ever become competitive.

And Paxson just tossed that first impression in the toilet all so we could get a look at Paul Shirley or Linton Johnson or so that we could maybe include Jeffries in a trade next summer.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> NcBullsFan, you should understand this move better then anyone else: it is pure business. There is no mercy here. But you are 100% right about timing. It was completely unprofessional from Pax...


Just to make this clear, Corie Blount is being paid his full salary this season - even though he was cut. Since Shirley will cost the Bulls some money, this move actually results in the Bulls adding, not shedding salary.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: KC: Blount's exit shocks Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Read what he said. We think we can...
> ...


Read what I said about the CBA rules for making qualifying offers to restricted free agents. If you do, I think you'll be better informed than Paxson himself


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Edited by Dan Rosenbaum


I agree 100% (along with everything else in your post).


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Just to make this clear, Corie Blount is being paid his full salary this season - even though he was cut. Since Shirley will cost the Bulls some money, this move actually results in the Bulls adding, not shedding salary.


I was thinking about “free spot”. We need one to make some “tryouts”. The season is gone anyway…we don’t need Corie anymore…


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I love ya man (in the ok way), but I think and I think you're doing your best to look at this from the most positive point of view possible... but you can't polish a turd.



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Blount was injured...to what extent no one knows. And for that matter, maybe the Bulls have chosen not to reveal the extent of Blount's injury, for Blount's sake next season.


Maybe, but judging by everyone's reactions, this is simply not the case.



> The Bulls have 22 games left in the season. If he was going to miss most of them then why not free up a roster spot? As for the timing, perhaps the severity of the injury wasn't known until today. The truth is, we don't know the facts. The only thing we know as fact is that Blount will be paid through the end of the year.


A fact that makes things even more ridiculous. If he were truly disabled by injury, wouldn't the Bulls be able to claim insurance against him? In that case, keeping him for next year (or for inclusion in a trade) would maken sense and in fact offset the cost of cutting Jeffries.



> Chandler is going to get more playing time over the next 22 games. That would significantly reduce Blount's playing time even if he was healthy.
> 
> Paxson claims he needs roster flexability to be able to take a look at waived NBA players and other NBDL players. With an 18-42 record, that would seem to make sense.


It would seem to, but in reality I don't see it. The whole purpose of signing an NBDL player at this point might be to find a guy you think could be a role player at a decent price for next year. That's all well and good, but Blount was already a role player at a decent price for next year!

In contrast, Jeffries has no future here (or probably anywhere). IIRC, you've suggested he should be bought out yourself. So why cut a guy who could help us at a reasonable price next year when we could cut a bum that we're pretty much universally agreed upon will be gone anyway?

The (lack) of logic and forsight being shown by Pax here is stupifying.



> Lets say they waived him in time for Blount to hook on with another team and possibly make a playoff roster. If he was healthy that might be a legitimate issue. However, he's injured. And no one would have likely signed an injured player in time for him to qualify for a playoff roster anyway. So doesn't his injury really make the timing of his release a moot point?


No. As I understand it, it's not whether the player is _signed_ after March 1 that prevents him from playing, it's whether he's waived after March 1!



> This really is much ado about nothing.


In contrast, it's one of those rare moves that on the surface appears to be nothing, but when you really look deeper, it's symptomatic of a whole lot of negative stuff. You almost have to give Paxson some credit... it's hard to imagine _any_ move he could have made involving an 8th or 9th guy on a roster that would somehow expose this much incompetence, but somehow he managed to pull it off.

And that hardly even touches on what a terrible, clueless move it sends to everyone.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

What does Corie Blount have in common with the following players?

Bryce Drew
Brevin Knight
Lonny Baxter
Eddie Griffin
Ron Mercer
Olden Polynice
Lawrence Funderburke
Ben Handogten


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> I was thinking about “free spot”. We need one to make some “tryouts”. The season is gone anyway…we don’t need Corie anymore…


By that logic, we might as well cut Crawford too, eh?

The free spot argument is a non-starter. This season is gone, but Blount will likely still be a productive role player next years. We could have just as easily gotten a free spot by cutting Jeffries, a guy who sucks now and will suck next year too.

Never mind the fact that move is totally classless and apostate to developing hard work and winning attitudes.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> What does Corie Blount have in common with the following players?
> 
> Bryce Drew
> ...


Those guys were cut, but before March 1, I believe.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> By that logic, we might as well cut Crawford too, eh?


C’mon you cannot compare Crawford situation to Corie…but as I said, timing for the “cut” was very unfortunate.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I absolutely agree with NCBulls fan and with Mike on this one. This was a classless as well as a clueless move by Pax. Blount was a solid vet roleplayer and we had an option for him for next season. It would have made more sense to have simply kept him, excercised the option next season, and move on. But Paxson is really worried about adding Paul Shirley? We saw this guy on our training camp roster before....he was cut. He certainly doesn't bring as much to the table as Blount does.

And this sends the completely wrong message to our players. Paxson is basically telling our players and any other vet role players out there that are paying attention that the Bulls do not care about their players. And it all would have been different had they only waived Blount a day earlier. It's a classless and clueless move that makes Paxson looke very inept. Sure, Blount wasn't a superstar but he was certainly better than most anything Pax can add at this late date unless he can somehow convince one of the euro free agents to sign on for the end of the year which is doubtful to the Nth degree. 

I also agree that it was odd to hear Pax talk about dealing Fizer over the summer because a sign & trade of him will be very difficult at best and certainly not something to plan on.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I couldn't agree more with those who called this both classless and clueless. While I don't really understand how the payroll will be affected, I do understand that Pax has possibly alienated most of his players just so he could sign Paul Shirley. Yes, that Paul Shirley. I know we're bad but I think it's still important that the players respect their GM and coach and I'd guess some of them have lost respect for them after this move. How could Pax have been so clueless to not know how this would effect the other players? Shouldn't he have realized that? And what's the god damn point of doing this just to sign Paul Shirley?! My god!

And how could be that classless to let Blount go two days after the last day teams can sign players? I mean, what the hell is that? That's just a total ***** move on his part. Period.

Pax has succeeded in being an a*s to one player and alienating the rest. Way to go, John. You've been doing a real good job. Keep up the good work. :| 

God, the crap we constantly go through with this team is unfrickinbelievable.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

This is complete idiocy in it's highest form...

Please I don't even want to hear about maybe we can trade Fizer, if we couldn't get rid of him at deadline, how is he magically going to become a hot commodity in the offseason?

Pax has no idea what he's doing, he continues to show that....


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

Moves like these are completely pointless and shows the moron in John Paxon. I thought he was an average GM at best but this move serves no purpose unless if Blount had a season-ending injury or something like that.

The only keepers on this team are probably Curry and Heinrich...this proves that NO ONE on this team is safe...NO ONE. Pax looks, and sounds like he is a perfectionist. It's not going to happen for a team this young. I knew guy was nuts. This team would be lucky if it goes anywhere the next few years.

Seriously, what does this move prove??? If we are going to build around the 3 Cs....does this really do that??? Which direction are we heading into??? Just WHAT is going on????


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am one of the most positive posters on this board when it comes to the bulls. But I must admit, I am having a hard time being positive about this move. Blount was a good player for us. We will miss his scoring and his rebounding. I have no problem having paxson look for younger players, but he should have cut him earlier. This does reflect bad on the Bulls when FA look at us. It is almost as if he didn't realize he could cut Corie earlier and that he just found out about it the night before he was waived. I know that is not the case because Shirley worked out for the team earlier. 

Corie was one of the leaders of the team in FG%. He did everything asked of him. He was a bargain! He deserves better. True he is getting paid for the rest of the season; however, why not give him a chance to play for another team?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I'm shocked.




This is a good thing.

Possibly for the whole rest of the team of slackers.

No one is safe.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Just wonder if anyone would like to compare Paxson to Krause at this point...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Well, I think this Corie Blount situation is the last straw for me. NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.

Heck, if it wasn't for all of you on this board, I would probably just give up following the Bulls.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Well, I think this Corie Blount situation is the last straw for me. NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.
> 
> Heck, if it wasn't for all of you on this board, I would probably just give up following the Bulls.


Wow...

Well I think a lot of us are pretty fed up...

I am...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Just wonder if anyone would like to compare Paxson to Krause at this point...


Well the team Krause had assembled up until Pax came in had a hell of a lot better chance of making the playoffs than this team has...

Paxson says it's going to take a couple of years to rebuild, ha, ya it will after you've set the team back a couple of years.

That's exactly what he's done, and hell no I'm not going to pat him on the back and say he's done a good job, because he hasn't, those are the facts, plain and simple.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Well, I think this Corie Blount situation is the last straw for me. NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.
> 
> Heck, if it wasn't for all of you on this board, I would probably just give up following the Bulls.


I was thinking the same thing.

What nobody seems to mention is that Blount has a history witht this franchise. He was drafted here and played on two of the championship teams. Of course, he was never responsible for winning, but this connection was one reason why he was brought back in the first place. How can we remain loyal to a francise that is not only flat out bad but disingenuous.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Well, I think this Corie Blount situation is the last straw for me. NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.
> 
> Heck, if it wasn't for all of you on this board, I would probably just give up following the Bulls.


So, when there is a fire on “board” you are pushing “eject” button? C’mon we are the Chicago Bulls fans, for good and bad times! Get yourself together man!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> So, when there is a fire on “board” you are pushing “eject” button? C’mon we are the Chicago Bulls fans, for good and bad times! Get yourself together man!


When's the last time we've had a good time?

Look we're a damn joke, and those responsible for turning it around have no idea what they are doing and in the process burning bridges.

Any Bulls fan has the right to be mad, if you don't agree, that's your business, but if we don't agree it's our business and we have the right to do it.

It's not like this is unwarranted.

I highly doubt NC decided this solely because of the Blount situation.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Well, I think this Corie Blount situation is the last straw for me. NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.
> 
> Heck, if it wasn't for all of you on this board, I would probably just give up following the Bulls.


You better not stop posting here or I'll come to North Carolina and fight you. You're in a small, small, small class of posters (maybe 3) that no matter what, I want to know their input. I'd really hate it if you stopped weighing in on Bulls issues just because the GM is an idiot.

(Kidding about the fighting you part of course  )


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> So, when there is a fire on “board” you are pushing “eject” button? C’mon we are the Chicago Bulls fans, for good and bad times! Get yourself together man!


Yeah, but when it is the captain of the ship who is tossing his productive and most loyal sailors into the fire, well then maybe it makes sense to jump ship.

But I am not really jumping ship, because I will still "kind of" be a Bulls fan out the respect that I have for the great group of people who frequent this site. You are all friends and that is not something I am willing to give up - regardless of what the Bulls do.

It doesn't really matter, but I thought changing my username made exactly the right political statement about how I feel.

So I will still be posting.

And airety, since you know my name and where I live, you would have an easy time coming to find me to beat me up. But remember I am a former football player who is six foot six and weighs 280 pounds, so good luck on that. :laugh:

(Just kidding about the height and weight.)


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

*Paxson is a Flaming Idiot* 
_or why he needs to be fired NOW._

This is really the final straw for me. Paxson is an absolute idiot and ruining this franchise for the future.

A) He signs Scottie Pippen as opposed to James Posey.
B) He trades Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall for aging, bad contract holding grinders.
C) He trades Roger Mason Jr. for Rick Brunson who he elected NOT to resign.
D) He cut Trenton Hassell.
E) He basically traded Lonny Baxter for Chris Jeffries.
F) He did not trade Fizer at the deadline and somehow thinks he will get something for Fizer this summer!
G)He cut a veteran role player who was giving us GREAT minutes off the bench who was an absolute professional and the team loved.
H)He cut that veteran ONE DAY AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR THAT PLAYER TO JOIN A PLAYOFF TIME.

It is H that absolutely infuriates me. Why would anyone want to screw someone over like that? Corie has been an absolute professional here! Yeah, he will never be a starter or more than an 8th man, but does he whine to the press? NO! Does he complain about his minutes? NO!

What the hell is the message Paxson is trying to send here? "I am Paxson, I'm a giant [EDIT: not nice person], hear me roar."

There is no loyalty whatsoever from that man. He's set this franchise back about 5 years, when free agents scorned the Bulls because of the way they treated players, and the team was made up guys who don't factor into the team's future whatsoever.

BJ has to be laughing his butt off in his office everyday. Reisendorf is probably walking around with a big wet spot on his pants, in complete shock about what he did when he hired an experience-less GM....

Fire Paxson!!!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> *Paxson is a Flaming Idiot*
> _or why he needs to be fired NOW._
> 
> ...


You're an excellent poster.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> And airety, since you know my name and where I live, you would have an easy time coming to find me to beat me up. But remember I am a former football player who is six foot six and weighs 280 pounds, so good luck on that. :laugh:
> 
> (Just kidding about the height and weight.)


I'd be surprised about the height ;-)

And to make it official, if you stop posting, we'll have to kill you.

(That's a joke!)


----------



## blinkofaneye (Mar 3, 2004)

*Blount and Pax*

I really was excited when Pax got the GM job, but watching what went down this year has made me disgusted. Corrie Blount is just the icing on the cake. Granted Blount is just a role player. But he is a role player that has done a good job. How many players on the Bulls can we honestly say the same thing about this season? 

for Pax to drop Blount the morning after the deadline is just plain wrong. Blount is a good veteran that should have been given a chance to join a playoff team. Pax is either really clueless of what he is doing or a real jerk. Either way, what kind of message does this send to other players who we might be interesed in getting as free agents? People didn't wan't to play for Krause. Pax is going to have a great reputation here. 

We are season ticket holders. I don't know how much longer we want to pay money for this. Now we get to go watch CBA players finish the season. What a joke this organization is turning into.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Maybe we should stage a one day protest, possibly in conjunction with the folks at the realgm bulls board. Just one day where no one posts anything on the bulls board. As a silent one day protest against the lack of direction for the franchise.

I for one and very sick of the things that have been going on on all levels with the bulls since the Championship years, and this seemingly minor cut, is nigh near the last straw.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Much appreciated, arenas809.

And as far as The Professor goes, as long as we're making up heights and weights I'm 6'11 275lbs. 

Paxson told me he'd sign me as soon as I put up mediocre numbers in the NBDL.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

I also believe it was a VERY dumb move. He was great friends with the team and also was very consistent with his play. But we keep players like Johnson, Jefferies and grab another CBA player. yea, real smart paxon.

the WORST part about it is not giving him enuff time to sign with a playoff team. He ain't deserve that at ALL


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

If the sole reason for waiving Blount was to open a spot for Paul Shirley, it makes little sense for the many reasons already stated.

I find it interesting that the move was made shortly after Paxson's return from Europe. Maybe he has plans to bring one or two Euros over before the end of the season and is looking at LJ and Shirley in the meantime?

Maybe he has some information that some player will be cut that interests him.

Maybe he's concerned Blount will come back and hit a few jumpshots in April that will allow the Bulls to win a couple more games. At this point, the Bulls might as well lose most of the remaining games to ensure a good draft position.

"Surely" there is more to this than Shirley.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Any Bulls fan has the right to be mad, if you don't agree, that's your business, but if we don't agree it's our business and we have the right to do it.


For once I will agree with you (in some areas) Arenas809 (and God knows it is hard for me). I’m mad too! Not because of Courie Blount crisis, but because of 6 years of constant failure.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.


 

Over Blount?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Look we're a damn joke,


No, _we're_ not.

We do need to calm down though.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> *Paxson is a Flaming Idiot*
> _or why he needs to be fired NOW._
> 
> ...


This deserves it's own thread.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> No, _we're_ not.
> ...


Oh we're not?

The franchise of the 90's now is a perenial loser with no end in sight...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> *Originally posted by Dan Rosenbaum!*
> NCBullsFan no longer; I am changing my handle to my name DanRosenbaum.





> *Originally posted by GB!*
> Over Blount?


Yep, and I don't even really like Corie Blount very much.

But moves like this say a lot about an organization, so I decided to do my little part to say something back.

And I don't agree with the Fire Paxson post, but I don't have the will to argue against it.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> No, _we're_ not.
> ...


It’s going to be really ugly after Crawford’s departure…


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> It’s going to be really ugly after Crawford’s departure…


Ya, going to lose 2 lottery picks this summer for nothing...

1 is going to turn out to be a nice role player, Corliss like...

The other, well he just might end up being an all-star...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> It’s going to be really ugly after Crawford’s departure…


actually I think it will be more ugly if he stays .I really dont think some of you could handle it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh we're not?
> ...


Agreed.

I'm waiting for it's revival, and in the meantime the sports gods have given us the Cubs and perhaps the Bears.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> It’s going to be really ugly after Crawford’s departure…


It can't get much...


Oh. I thought you were talking about the SOTB (state of the backcourt).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> actually I think it will be more ugly if he stays .I really dont think some of you could handle it.


They may have to. I really think Jamal is going to remain a Bull...I guess we will have to wait & see.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ya, going to lose 2 lottery picks this summer for nothing...
> ...



Fizer an All-Star? I just don't see it.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It can't get much...
> ...


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You are pure evil…but I like it!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I've read every single post in this thread and so I think I'll play devils advocate for a little bit...

While I don't agree with the manner in which Pax let Blount go - a day after his being able to sign on with another team - , the question really needs to be asked: how are you folks so sure that he would have even gone to another team? It is very possible that his injury is more severe than anything we know about and if it is, what other team in their right mind would take him on and pay him when he can't play? It's also extremely possible that this information wasn't known until it was too late.

I've read that his salary will count against next years cap. I don't think that's true as the Bulls had a team option on his deal and as such will simply exercise that option. I've read about why wasn't Jefferies cut? Well, his salary would count next year as his deal is guaranteed.

Some have groussed about Pax's statement that if we were in a playoff hunt he wouldn't have made this move and then have proceeded to rail him for it. What's wrong with that statement? If we're in the playoff hunt in all likelyhood it isn't because of Blount and keeping him around wouldn't hurt much. He'd be like Pip. But, a team with an 18-42 record (or whatever it is) doesn't have the luxury of keeping a guy on the roster who has no way of contributing and Blount, for all intents and purposes is done for the season. An 18-42 team needs to look at every option available to them and also to look at every player available to them and a disabled Corie Blount doesn't do this team one bit of good.

Realistically, Blount was the only player who could have been let go and had he been healthy I don't think he would have been cut. I suppose you could cut Fizer but he's still healthy and can still contribute. Blount is done.

Now, I'm not going to argue about the manner in which Blount was let go but simply that this isn't the armageddon that most of you make it out to be. I think this was an extremely difficult and gutsy move by pax simply because he had to have an idea of the reaction to such a move and he made it anyways.

The man may well be an idiot. I don't think he is. Time will tell, just as it will for Crawford, Curry, Chandler and Skiles.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> While I don't agree with the manner in which Pax let Blount go - a day after his being able to sign on with another team - , the question really needs to be asked: how are you folks so sure that he would have even gone to another team?


From the way Corie spoke, it sure as hell didn't seem like "well i'm out for the season so I understand". Also Scott Williams is a pretty similar player and he had the Mavs and Lakers looking at him, not sure what makes you think Corie wouldn't have gotten some attention from playoff teams. 



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I've read about why wasn't Jefferies cut? Well, his salary would count next year as his deal is guaranteed.


Ya, all $900,000...if we don't want to cut him over that amount of money, that's called being cheap.




> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Realistically, Blount was the only player who could have been let go and had he been healthy I don't think he would have been cut. I suppose you could cut Fizer but he's still healthy and can still contribute. Blount is done.


Ya that's why I see Corie on the floor a hell of a lot more than I see Fizer...



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I think this was an extremely difficult and gutsy move by pax simply because he had to have an idea of the reaction to such a move and he made it anyways.


Well you got the gut part right...

Gutless.
Classless.
Pointless.

Gutsy, you make it sound like he just swam the English Channel.



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> The man may well be an idiot.


He is...he's showing it through actions and words.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> From the way Corie spoke, it sure as hell didn't seem like "well i'm out for the season so I understand". Also Scott Williams is a pretty similar player and he had the Mavs and Lakers looking at him, not sure what makes you think Corie wouldn't have gotten some attention from playoff teams.
> ...


I was counting on you Areans. Never let me down...

So, how are you so sure he would catch onto another team? Scott Williams wasn't injurued. Corie Blount is. On Jefferies $900,000 salary - do you have $900,000 you'd like to throw out the window? It's all well and good to play armchair GM when you don't have to be accountable for the bottom line and you don't have a board of directors to answer to but $900,000 is $900,000 and I don't know of too many businesses - even fortune 500 ones - that are simply going to let that kind of money go by the wayside.

You won't see Corie Blount on the floor any more because he's hurt anyways. He's not going to help this ballclub one iota from this point forward and while Paul Shirley is hardly anything to write home about, at least he can possibly contribute. Corie Blount has zero chance to contribute to this ballclub from this point forward.

Finally, I'm not making it sound like he swam the english channel no more than you are making it sound like he just murdered a dozen babies. He cut Corie Blount for crying out loud. Big deal. It was a business decision - plain and simple and I'd bet it was a tough decision for him to make but he did it anyway. That takes guts whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> You won't see Corie Blount on the floor any more because he's hurt anyways. He's not going to help this ballclub one iota from this point forward and while Paul Shirley is hardly anything to write home about, at least he can possibly contribute.


Oh so NOW we're looking for contributors?

We've needed a real backup PG and a starting caliber SF all season, and we got neither..

Yet Blount gets hurt and we go scrambling to sign someone to take his spot on the bench?

Come on...

As far as this being business, ya it was business....

BAD business...

You can join the "We Don't Get It" Team along with GB and the others..

This sends a bad message, we just cut a guy who won 2 rings with us, did everything that was asked of him, and did so after he would be able to sign on with a playoff team.

Whether he could or would actually sign on with a playoff team, well we won't know now, because he CAN'T.

That's classless, and don't think vets won't remember something like this before signing with the Bulls...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Yet Blount gets hurt and we go scrambling to sign someone to take his spot on the bench?
> 
> Come on...


Yeah really, come on.

I stopped reading your post right there, because Pax clearly said he wanted a roster spot to look at some people.

Give it a rest.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh so NOW we're looking for contributors?
> ...


Getting personal again are you? So now I'm a member of the "we don't get it" club? I enjoy how you say it's bad business. I run my own business. A fairly successful one at that. I've got quite a few employees and I tend to look at the bottom line of things. I still don't see all the terrible things with this move. This is Corie Blount we're talking about and still you don't seem to get it.

You're mind is made up and anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't get it". Well, I'm glad I don't get it because if I did, I'd be perfectly content with letting almost $1,000,000 walk out the door. I'd allow a completely terrible team to have a non-producing player on it that can be let go for nothing and thereby giving me the opportunity to look at other players that I wouldn't otherwise have the ability to do.

You, yourself had said that on a team this bad NOONE should be safe. I suppose that should be everyone but Corie Blount. A guy that won two rings with us about 10 years ago in a reserve role then also.

Whatever.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

My life just isn't exciting enough.

I look at how worked up some of us are getting and wonder what I am missing. Why can't I make myself care enough about Corie Blount to rant and rave?

Personally, I don't understand the move, either. Corie has been a capable 5th string PF/C on this 18 win team. I had him pencilled in on next year's roster, but I guess I'll have to employ my seldom used eraser on this one.

I guess it is rather insulting that he wasn't afforded the opportunity to catch on with another team. I see what *Dan!* (*NCBullsFan!*) is saying about HOW it was done. I agree it makes more sense to be disappointed by that than by the fact that he was actually cut. Frankly, I'm not sure why Jefferies hasn't been waived yet, either. I'd probably quit the board if that happened.

We are one of the worst teams in the league. Shake-up is not optional, it's necessary. Especially when we're dealing with peripheral players to the general scheme of things. Wasn't there some kind of blow-up just the other day between Skiles and Blount? If there was, look no further for the reason he was cut.

Message sent.

You've got mail.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> While I don't agree with the manner in which Pax let Blount go - a day after his being able to sign on with another team - , the question really needs to be asked: how are you folks so sure that he would have even gone to another team? It is very possible that his injury is more severe than anything we know about and if it is, what other team in their right mind would take him on and pay him when he can't play? It's also extremely possible that this information wasn't known until it was too late.


If this all happened due to information Paxson learned after March 1st, then why not be upfront with the media and simply say that? And if this is truly what happened, why are the players upset about this?

I don't think there is any guarantee that Corie could have signed with another team, but it would have shown some class to let him have a shot at doing so.



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I've read that his salary will count against next years cap. I don't think that's true as the Bulls had a team option on his deal and as such will simply exercise that option. I've read about why wasn't Jefferies cut? Well, his salary would count next year as his deal is guaranteed.


The Bulls had a team option on him, so he will not count against the salary cap next year.



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Some have groussed about Pax's statement that if we were in a playoff hunt he wouldn't have made this move and then have proceeded to rail him for it. What's wrong with that statement?


To me, this says that Paxson knows that Blount is not injured enough to not have possibly been an asset to a team in the hunt for the playoffs. That is the reason it upsets me.



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> If we're in the playoff hunt in all likelyhood it isn't because of Blount and keeping him around wouldn't hurt much. He'd be like Pip. But, a team with an 18-42 record (or whatever it is) doesn't have the luxury of keeping a guy on the roster who has no way of contributing and Blount, for all intents and purposes is done for the season. An 18-42 team needs to look at every option available to them and also to look at every player available to them and a disabled Corie Blount doesn't do this team one bit of good.
> 
> Realistically, Blount was the only player who could have been let go and had he been healthy I don't think he would have been cut. I suppose you could cut Fizer but he's still healthy and can still contribute. Blount is done.
> ...


To me, this move suggest very poor planning and an organization that is running from fire to fire with very little thinking about the long-term implications of their decisions. The last three players that the Bulls have waived (without re-signing) are Fred Hoiberg, Trenton Hassell and Corie Blount - all hard-working role players that don't complain about variable minutes. The next guy we ask to perform those roles will have to think twice about whether it might be preferable to perform that role elsewhere.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Getting personal again are you? So now I'm a member of the "we don't get it" club? I enjoy how you say it's bad business. I run my own business. A fairly successful one at that. I've got quite a few employees and I tend to look at the bottom line of things. I still don't see all the terrible things with this move. This is Corie Blount we're talking about and still you don't seem to get it.
> ...


Blount didnt win 2 rings with the Bulls. He was long gone by then. Just thought I would point that out


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> To me, this move suggest very poor planning and an organization that is running from fire to fire with very little thinking about the long-term implications of their decisions. The last three players that the Bulls have waived (without re-signing) are Fred Hoiberg, Trenton Hassell and Corie Blount - all hard-working role players that don't complain about variable minutes. The next guy we ask to perform those roles will have to think twice about whether it might be preferable to perform that role elsewhere.


I think this is the answer to Wynn's indifference too. Yeah, this is a crappy team, no doubt. Yeah, there needs to be a shake-up.

But you don't just shake to see what falls out of the tree. Or just because you _want_ to shake. You have to be making the right moves in terms of talent too. To cut to the chase, you shake things up by getting rid of the bad players and getting better ones. We're getting rid of decent role players and replacing them with worse ones.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Flash, not meaning to get personal, what I'm saying is this, cutting a Corie Blount, sends a message..

Guys around the league hear about stuff like this, they know, so you might really want a guy who's better than Corie Blount, but your action towards CB maybe the reason he doesn't sign...

Didn't KG say he'd never play for the Bulls because of the way the Jordan era came to an end?

That's mismanagement, I don't care if Blount gets cut, but to cut him 1 for some slob, 2 after he has a chance to get on with a playoff team sends a bad message.

Plain and simple.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

It seems to me that it is simple harsh reality. The way Pax handled this was cooly cut and dried, and to some posters, unfeeling and cruel and the crime of the century. Get over it. It's business. No one died. Corrie still gets paid a lot of money. Is it possible that he could have been picked up by another team in the playoff hunt had Pax not "bungled" the timing? Depends. How's the knee? Do any of us really know? No. 

Moving on. It also seems to me that KC Johnson tugged at our proverbial heartstrings just a little with the lead-in to the article:



> All anyone needed to see to understand Corie Blount's popularity among his Bulls teammates was etched on the face of Kirk Hinrich after Tuesday's practice.
> 
> The normally mild-mannered Hinrich stopped to compose his thoughts as he talked about Blount, who was waived in a surprising move just before practice.


Horrors. The kid is upset. This is horrible news. And a lesson in business. Welcome to the NBA. Simple harsh reality. And yes, it stinks sometimes. 

Looking at the bigger picture for a second. This "infusion", if you will, of minor league talent could be just another way getting a head start on next season. Who knows? Shirley could stick, Linton could stick. Or they could suck and we know it sooner rather than later. It's not like we've signed them to fat contracts. Just a 10-day, see how it goes. Have a look-see. Give them a chance. 

I for one am more intrigued by this as opposed to infuriated by it.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> To me, this move suggest very poor planning and an organization that is running from fire to fire with very little thinking about the long-term implications of their decisions. The last three players that the Bulls have waived (without re-signing) are Fred Hoiberg, Trenton Hassell and Corie Blount - all hard-working role players that don't complain about variable minutes. The next guy we ask to perform those roles will have to think twice about whether it might be preferable to perform that role elsewhere.


And here is more evidence for this view.

Players were shocked at the move, and Blount's camp was disappointed in the timing. If it happened a day earlier, Blount could have been picked up by a team headed to the playoffs. Monday was the deadline for postseason rosters.

"The timing is unfortunate,'' Skiles admitted. "It's a crummy business sometimes.''

*The timing likely was an oversight as operations chief John Paxson was returning from a scouting trip in Europe on Monday.* Blount was expendable because his contract expires after this season, and the Bulls have several post players.

"I didn't take pleasure in doing this,'' Paxson said. "Corie's been professional and has played very well for us.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull033.html

A freakin oversight! Well, I guess incompetence is better than spite as an excuse.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> From the way Corie spoke, it sure as hell didn't seem like "well i'm out for the season so I understand". Also Scott Williams is a pretty similar player and he had the Mavs and Lakers looking at him, not sure what makes you think Corie wouldn't have gotten some attention from playoff teams.


FYI, Scott Williams is STARTING for the Mavs these days.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040222/ap_on_sp_ba_ga_su/bkn_rockets_mavericks_1

Yao had six of Houston's first 11 points as he exploited his eight-inch height advantage over Mavericks starter Scott Williams.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> "The timing is unfortunate,'' Skiles admitted. "It's a crummy business sometimes.''


Alright...

Everyone get a glass...

Here's a toast to Skiles quitting...

His timing will be unfortunate, but hey it's a crummy business sometimes.

Only one word comes to mind reading something like that, I can't say it here, but it rhymes with *******.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> FYI, Scott Williams is STARTING for the Mavs these days.
> ...


As I said, anyone who doesn't think Corie wouldn't have gotten picked up, doesn't know the game of basketball.

If he was really that injured, why would he be so disappointed about being released at this point of the season?

Skiles words seriously just pissed me off about the whole thing, how can we expect the players to be professionals and we have a GM and coach that aren't pros themselves...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> A freakin oversight!


LIKELY!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> As I said, anyone who doesn't think Corie wouldn't have gotten picked up, doesn't know the game of basketball.
> ...


I have my doubts about his being picked up. I'm also pretty secure about my knowledge of the game. He may well have hooked on with another team. He very well might not have but your assertion that someone who believes he wouldn't get picked up must not know anything about basketball is simply wrong.

And now you're pissed at Skiles? This is a crummy business sometimes.

And still, I'm stunned at all this hand-wringing over fricken Corie Blount.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I have my doubts about his being picked up. I'm also pretty secure about my knowledge of the game. He may well have hooked on with another team. He very well might not have but your assertion that someone who believes he wouldn't get picked up must not know anything about basketball is simply wrong.
> ...


Flash, I don't think it is so much "over Blount" as over a POOR move by mnagement. Blount actually played well for the Bulls this season and we certainly won't get any more out of training camp cut Paul Shirley. And the WAY it was done was totally classless, the orginization could have done it a day or two earlier and at LEAST given Blount a chance to sign on with a contender. It'smore about how Pax treats his players than anything else IMO.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> And still, I'm stunned at all this hand-wringing over fricken Corie Blount.


According the Mike McGraw, the Bulls had until midnight Monday to waive Blount and he would still be eligible for a playoff roster on another team. They waived him on Tuesday morning. It seems farfetched to believe that Blount was examined by doctors in that short period of time. And even if he was, he could have been examined just a few hours earlier so that Paxson could have made his decision on Blount on Monday night.

The Sun-Times claims that it likely was an oversight that will lead to Corie not having a chance to hook up with a playoff team.

We have been led to believe by what we hear in the press that Paxson and Skiles have made changing the work ethic of the Bulls a top priority. Corie Blount accpeted that challenge and was highly productive in his role. Trent Hassell accepted it. Fred Hoiberg accepted it. And none of those guys are around anymore. And Corie was cut in a classless fashion that sends a message loud and clear that the Bulls are not the type of organization that cares enough about its players that it makes sure to meet important deadlines.

So when Jamal Crawford or Eddy Curry or Tyson Chandler or Kirk Hinrich are thinking about whether to stay after practice to work on their game, do you want them thinking about how rotten the Bulls were to Corie Blount and maybe they don't really need to do that work today? Look where it got Corie. Look where it got Trent. Look where it got Fred.

And when Skiles or Paxson gets on them, do you want Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Hinrich to be thinking in the back of their head, "Why do I have to listen to these freaking hypocrites? They don't give a hoot about working hard. Heck, they don't even work hard themselves or at least they're incompetent. Why are they complaining about my incompetence?"

This is the reason for my hand-wringing. These are human beings that play for the Bulls - human beings who just learned a lot about the priorities of this organization.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Flash, I don't think it is so much "over Blount" as over a POOR move by mnagement. Blount actually played well for the Bulls this season and we certainly won't get any more out of training camp cut Paul Shirley. And the WAY it was done was totally classless, the orginization could have done it a day or two earlier and at LEAST given Blount a chance to sign on with a contender. It'smore about how Pax treats his players than anything else IMO.


I haven't once questioned the manner in which this was done. It stinks. I'm also not all that upset over it either. I really don't think free agents across the land are going to look at the bulls and not think about taking their money. Not over this.

To quote the immortal Bard - this is much ado about nothing. 

This isn't like John Starks, when Krause purposefully didn't release him until after the deadline. It was an oversight. I'm not excusing it and I certainly don't condone it.

I suppose this is the topic of the day to get all over Pax and/or Skiles about. After tonights game they'll be something else or merely a continuation of the same.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> According the Mike McGraw, the Bulls had until midnight Monday to waive Blount and he would still be eligible for a playoff roster on another team. They waived him on Tuesday morning. It seems farfetched to believe that Blount was examined by doctors in that short period of time. And even if he was, he could have been examined just a few hours earlier so that Paxson could have made his decision on Blount on Monday night.
> ...


Yea, that whole paying Jay Williams while he screwed up big time certainly was a ****ty thing for the Bulls to do to him. How DARE they treat a player that way. Look at only one side of the coin and all you ever see is tails. Frankly, I expected more out of you as you seem to be one of the more level-headed posters on this board.

You can look at every organization in this league and see both good and bad. You wanna harp on this particular "bad", that's fine but theres also some good here. 

About Hassell and Hoiberg, they flourish in Minny because they are limited role players there. In Chicago they were asked to be above and beyond what they can provide.

(Playing Devils Advocate is fun!!!!!)


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> *The timing likely was an oversight as operations chief John Paxson was returning from a scouting trip in Europe on Monday.*




I don't know if enough of you saw this.

Oversight...OVERSIGHT!? That upsets me more than the idea that it may have been done in spite.

How can we expect our players to develop when they play for an organzation that is incompetent and disorganized at every turn?

I've said this a lot this year. But I'll say it again. We need a new owner. New managment. New trainers. New everything. This is a mickey mouse organization. And we deserve better.

I don't want to read about Skiles and Paxson giving quotes about how they can't believe we all keep showing up to support the team. How about you take some responsibilty and start doing something with our money???

Bulls fans are the best fans in basketball. The numbers bare that out. And to have this level of incompetency...it's a tough pill to swallow.

This blow hurts. Because we all know we are looking at another rebuilding cycle now. And there is clearly no discernable plan.

The Bulls owe it to their fans to come out and tell us what is going on and where they plan on going.

I remember a few years ago during the draft they showed Kiki Vandewhe talking to ticket holders, explain who he had drafted, why he was drafting them, and his overall vision for the franchise. And what struck me was "here is a man with a plan". I haven't got that from Paxson yet. He hasn't expressed a clear vision for where he is going to take us and how we are going to get there. I think Krause had a plan, flawed or not. We all knew his plan was first for the free agents. Then he was going to build through the draft and then trade...but there is no plan now. And it really hampers my ability to be a bulls fan in these dark times. I need to have something to hold on to. And all I see this summer is us losing two former lottery picks. Drafting another power forward. And somehow praying that that's enough.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea, that whole paying Jay Williams while he screwed up big time certainly was a ****ty thing for the Bulls to do to him. How DARE they treat a player that way. Look at only one side of the coin and all you ever see is tails. Frankly, I expected more out of you as you seem to be one of the more level-headed posters on this board.
> ...


They still waived Jay. Sure we're keeping him around in some capacity. But we still ended up dumping him for a roster spot. I would hate to see what happens if he does make a return and we lost him just because we were dead set on bringing Linton Johnson in.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Yea, that whole paying Jay Williams while he screwed up big time certainly was a ****ty thing for the Bulls to do to him. How DARE they treat a player that way. Look at only one side of the coin and all you ever see is tails. Frankly, I expected more out of you as you seem to be one of the more level-headed posters on this board.
> 
> You can look at every organization in this league and see both good and bad. You wanna harp on this particular "bad", that's fine but theres also some good here.
> ...


At least among the folks I talked with about this, it was not clear-cut that the Bulls could have easily gotten out of Williams' contract. And I figured that all of the nice things that Duffy said about the Bulls easily could have been a condition of the settlement. At least if I was the Bulls, it would have been part of what I asked for.

So I think the Bulls did with Williams what they had to - nothing more, nothing less. So I don't give much credit to them for that.

I have tried to give Paxson the benefit of the doubt at every turn and I have never called for him being fired or Skiles being fired. And I don't think either of them should be. But at some point it just gets hard to keep trying to spin all of this into something positive - the apparent incompetence in how the Bulls treated Corie Blount just put me beyond my ability to spin this in my own head.

So like a coiled spring, I am mad and I am thrashing about at this organization. Eventually I will probably settle down. But today I am in no way NCBullsFan, and I have never, ever felt that way before.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I just want to say that I am also going to drop my screen name of *Wynn!* and replace it with my real name....... *Wynn!*

_Though I make jokes, I do understand that you guys are more upset with the form than the function, I can respect that. Cutting Corie Blount doesn't seem to bother anyone. The manner in which he was cut, however, does speak volumes about the way the organization is being run._


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> _Cutting Corie Blount doesn't seem to bother anyone._


Let me go on record saying that it upsets me. It wouldn't be difficult to argue that Blount has been our most productive PF. What have Davis, JYD, Chandler & Fizer done that Corie hasn't? He clearly has the most reliable offense of any of them, and he's as good of a rebounder and defender as any of them. While we'll never know, I believe that those that think he wouldn't get picked up by a playoff team are clearly wrong. Several people seem to be underrating Corie Blount. As Dan mentioned, Blount had a very high level of productivity per minute on the court, perhaps the highest on the Bulls. He did a lot in limited minutes. Had we given him more minutes, we might have been better off for it.

Also, Blount is a team player who understands his role, does it well, and works hard. Thinking about that torks me off even more that he was cut. I felt much the same when Fred Hoiberg was not brought back.

The answer to our mess is not to get rid of soild veteran role players who serve as team leaders. It's to allow the young core time to develop or to replace members of that young core with something better (if possible). Bringing in NBDL and CBA guys to replace solid veteran role players isn't going to do anything positive for our team IMO.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I really don't care what players were involved...

The way it was handled is the problem...

Who's commending Pax on the JWill issue?

Please, Jay got paid, but they handled that wrong too...

Pax wouldn't even let the kid come to practice, and everytime he talked about me talked as if he didn't want or think he could make a comeback...

Stop patting Pax on the damn back...

This team is as unprofessional as they come, and management is setting the example.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fizer Fanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me go on record saying that it upsets me. It wouldn't be difficult to argue that Blount has been our most productive PF. What have Davis, JYD, Chandler & Fizer done that Corie hasn't? He clearly has the most reliable offense of any of them, and he's as good of a rebounder and defender as any of them. While we'll never know, I believe that those that think he wouldn't get picked up by a playoff team are clearly wrong. Several people seem to be underrating Corie Blount. As Dan mentioned, Blount had a very high level of productivity per minute on the court, perhaps the highest on the Bulls. He did a lot in limited minutes. Had we given him more minutes, we might have been better off for it.


I personally would have waived Fizer. Chandler has too much possibility to waive for a roster spot. JYD and AD are just too expensive (business has to factor in here when your considering those millions). I'm not convinced Blount actually brings more than any of these three. At least not enough more that we would be a vitally different club if he were to switch minutes with any of them.

I'm not sure what Pax is thinking in holding on to Fizer. If we give him the qualifying offer, he is on the books for another year at $5 million since no one is likely to beat that. If we don't give him the qualifying offer, then we renounce him and he cannot re-sign with us (due to the rules involved with the expansion draft). We should have just let him go when we weren't able to get anything for him at the trade deadline.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

I'm with you, Wynn. While Blount wasn't clearly better, he wasn't clearly worse either. The first 3 PFs can't be cut. Fizer is probably the 1 guy that it makes sense to let go of. Heck, he'd probably like the chance to be able to go somewhere else and try to earn some minutes at this point. Still, I see no real benefit in eliminating any of them in favor of Paul Shirley unless 1 of them starts to become something of a cancer.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fizer Fanatic</b>!
> I'm with you, Wynn. While Blount wasn't clearly better, he wasn't clearly worse either. The first 3 PFs can't be cut. Fizer is probably the 1 guy that it makes sense to let go of. Heck, he'd probably like the chance to be able to go somewhere else and try to earn some minutes at this point. Still, I see no real benefit in eliminating any of them in favor of Paul Shirley unless 1 of them starts to become something of a cancer.


Makes me wonder, too, what the Bull thinks it will find in Shirley. Still, not enough of a reason for me to get up in arms.

Think about it this way. Blount was given a paid vacation by the Bull for the rest of the season. He doesn't get a chance to play for a title, but he'll be picked up by somebody for next season. He keeps all his money.

Pax has got to be thinking about off-season moves at this point. The rest of this season means nothing except for development of players and looking at prospects. If Blount was not in the plans, might as well give him a break for a few months.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder, too, what the Bull thinks it will find in Shirley. Still, not enough of a reason for me to get up in arms.
> ...


Who are we developing?

Linton Johnson? Paul Shirley? Dupree?
Brunson?


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> Think about it this way. Blount was given a paid vacation by the Bull for the rest of the season. He doesn't get a chance to play for a title, but he'll be picked up by somebody for next season. He keeps all his money.


A paid vacation he didn't want, and didn't deserve (as far as I can tell).



> Pax has got to be thinking about off-season moves at this point. The rest of this season means nothing except for development of players and looking at prospects. If Blount was not in the plans, might as well give him a break for a few months.


Picking up Blount's option to either keep or trade him sounds better to me than letting him go for Paul Shirley and an open roster spot this summer. If we trade either Chandler or JYD this summer, we could very well end up missing what Blount offers. And Blount could have been a quality guy to throw in to make a trade work.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Who are we developing?
> ...


Is this a real question, or more ranting?

We are developing Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, Crawdaddy, & possibly ERob. We are also developing a rotation and defining roles. We are developing chemistry between the players who are likely to return next season.

In the meantime, we are also likely looking for some spark who can give us meaningful minutes at SF. Is Shirley a SF, I don't even know? I feel that Pax is making the same mistake as Krause in that he's so busy looking for that hidden potential that he's overlooking the grinders who can produce real NBA minutes.

At this point, Pax is probably trying to get an advanced look at some guys we may want to have fill out our roster next season. If he's already decided not to bring Blount back, what's the harm in cutting him? Is it really going to affect our record?


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Is Shirley a SF, I don't even know? I feel that Pax is making the same mistake as Krause in that he's so busy looking for that hidden potential that he's overlooking the grinders who can produce real NBA minutes.


Shirley is a 6-10, 240lbs PF from Iowa State. I guess he wanted Fizer to have someone to talk about the Cyclones with over on the bench for the next 10 days? Also, Shirley was a walk-on at ISU. Not the guy I associate with the term 'hidden potential', but definitely a 'grinder'.


----------



## evalam23 (Feb 2, 2004)

As you can see it just appears that management is selfish about its needs and it is all business. Why not let fizer go who has been in this league for 4 years and try to hitch on with another team. Unless I am mistaken he is going to walk next year anyway. Picking up shirley with no NBA experience and than playing him over Fizer is a slap in Fizer's face if it happens, it just makes you wonder what is really going on. If Shirley does play before Erob and Fizer it just means that the statement about earning minutes is just a joke. It is all about following certain rules and if they are not followed you just collect splinters up your a**. I just remember what Skiles said about fizer after he score 21 pts the other day off the bench, he needs to do that when it counts, well the team only has 18 win and 12 since you been here, so nobody on this team really scores when it counts. Doghouse.

"Marcus played well, but we need guys to play well during significant times of close games.''


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> At least among the folks I talked with about this, it was not clear-cut that the Bulls could have easily gotten out of Williams' contract. And I figured that all of the nice things that Duffy said about the Bulls easily could have been a condition of the settlement. At least if I was the Bulls, it would have been part of what I asked for.
> 
> ...


Dan is thrashin' !!!
:rock: :jam: :rock: 

But seriously, as pissed as I am, I have a hard time thinking I have any less passion for the Bulls, I don't think you do either. If you did, would you be so pissed?

At the same time, what exactly is it that's got you coiled like this if it's not Paxson? I guess what I don't see is how you can be to the point of being driven away by the moves you see going on, but at the same time not want Paxson out of here. It's simply my opinion, of course, but if you find that he's the root of the problem, does he not need to go?

I know I'm in the very small minority when I say he ought to be fired, and I can appeciate the argument that he should be given time because of the nature of the job and because he came in without experience.

But man, let's consider just what kind of job we're talking about. Paxson has been placed at the head of a very big, very sophisticated enterprise. In what other business would someone in an equivalent position get that kind of slack? Even if some level of slack is called for, and I think it might be, I think it's fair to say he's displayed gross incompetence in a couple of ways.

First, I cringe when I hear things coming out of the Bulls like this stuff about trading Fizer. Am I just totally wrong, or does it show a patent ignorance or misunderstanding of the league rules? Shouldn't a basic requirement of a GM (no matter how raw he is) be to know this stuff?

Second, isn't a basic requirement for a GM that he exercise his duties with a little bit of class and honesty. Or put in less emotional terms, some realistic give and take and respect between management and the players. Without that, I don't see us going anywhere. And this incident isn't the first time I've been upset at a lack of this on Paxson's part. Early in the season he made such a huge fuss about respect and keeping things in the house and not having players complaining in the media. But since that happened, he himself has doled out a considerable amount of public criticism, and he's allowed Skiles to as well. Some of the criticism is warranted, but it could just as easily be kept in the house. I don't like what I see in that department at all. His regime comes off as petty and hypocritical in that department, and I find that very hard to respect.

Put those facts together with (aside from Kirk and maybe Skiles and Dupree) a whole series of questionable personel moves, and I've seen enough. If Paxson was in most any other realm of business, I don't think this kind of stuff would be tolerated (at least in an organization of equivalent magnitude), whether some level of "learning curve" is to be expected or not. *These aren't learning curve problems, these are basic competency problems.* And I don't see how time will solve them.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Dan is thrashin' !!!
> :rock: :jam: :rock:
> 
> But seriously, as pissed as I am, I have a hard time thinking I have any less passion for the Bulls, I don't think you do either. If you did, would you be so pissed?


I don't have any less passion for the Bulls yet, but I am pretty passionate about George Bush too - and that doesn't mean I am a fan of his. Time will tell, but there is a new team starting up down here.



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!At the same time, what exactly is it that's got you coiled like this if it's not Paxson? I guess what I don't see is how you can be to the point of being driven away by the moves you see going on, but at the same time not want Paxson out of here. It's simply my opinion, of course, but if you find that he's the root of the problem, does he not need to go?
> 
> I know I'm in the very small minority when I say he ought to be fired, and I can appeciate the argument that he should be given time because of the nature of the job and because he came in without experience.
> 
> ...


I have always felt like there was lots of stuff going on that I didn't know about and for that reason I would give Paxson the benefit of the doubt.

Combine that with my strong belief that the constant firings of coaches and GMs has put way too much power in the hands of players and that is largely why I would not like to see Paxson fired.

But from my vantage point I think you are very much on the mark with your analysis of Paxson's performance. It is not so much the big decisions he has made, but on the little decisions that the real professionals seem to make their money on, he has been absolutely horrible.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I am pretty passionate about George Bush too - and that doesn't mean I am a fan of his.


No kidding…one more “tour” for him at White House and be ready for war against: Iran, Syria and North Korea…


----------

