# Best Thing for Gordon is a trade- Daily Herald



## blinkofaneye (Mar 3, 2004)

Best thing for Gordon is a trade 

By Barry Rozner
Daily Herald Sports Columnist
Posted Thursday, February 23, 2006 


We already know Bulls general manager John Paxson has a big heart.

He proved that in his dealings with Eddy Curry.

Now, Paxson can show his generosity again: He can trade Ben Gordon.

This is going to be one of those stories in which no one ever tells you the truth, because it’s not in anyone’s best interests to make it public.

Let’s just say then, for the sake of argument, that Bulls coach Scott Skiles doesn’t want Gordon on his roster. Skiles already has a reputation for being unable to coach star players, so going public wouldn’t do his image any good.

Let’s also hypothesize that Gordon can’t stand playing for Skiles. He’s too smart to say that out loud because that would just label Gordon, and he’s better off saying nothing, which is what he has done.

And let’s say Paxson needs to deal Gordon to keep his coach sane. It doesn’t improve Gordon’s value by letting people know Paxson is eager to move him.

But if Gordon isn’t dealt by 2 p.m. today, everyone’s going to smile and say it’s all good, when it seems obvious that what’s best for Skiles and Gordon is an amicable divorce.

It’s difficult to sell the idea that the Bulls will be better off without Gordon, or that Paxson can get equal value in players or draft picks, but it’s nearly certain Gordon will be better off elsewhere.

This neither makes Skiles a bad guy, nor Gordon a problem child, but Skiles likes grinders, and Gordon has superstar potential. They’re oil and water, and Gordon’s never going to find his ceiling as long as Skiles keeps hammering away at him.

Does Gordon have faults? Of course. Are there things he needs to work on? Absolutely. But he’s not going to work through it carrying Skiles around on his back.

Gordon, who should have been starting a year ago, is not Kirk Hinrich, who has never done anything wrong in Skiles’ eyes. Some games they make the same mistakes in a 10-second span, take the same bad shots, but one earns a glare and a spot on the bench and the other gets a pat on the back.

In a game last week, Skiles took his best player/scorer — Gordon — and had him inbound the ball in a tie game with half a second left in regulation. What’s the message there?..
for the rest of the article, follow the link.
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=159285

I am shocked that Barry actually said all this. He even brought up the last second shots with Ben taking the ball out. I personally love watching Ben Gordon play and hope he is with the Bulls for a long time! Interesting column.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

WOW.

In the words of ScottMay, sort of...

This guy's not a mouthpiece for the team's management.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Let's say I have no actual facts and I'll write an entire column based on conjecture.

Gordon has improved his ball handling, passing, and defense quite a bit this year, things that Skiles would harp on. Can't we just say Skiles' method is actually working instead of creating some kind of feud out of thin air?


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

Sometimes I agree that it feels like Skiles is holding back Gordon. But in my opinion they will just have to get over it (if anything this guy claims without any facts is actually going on). This has been happening over and over with players one to many times since the Jordan era and im tired of hearing "they might be better off someplace else". If Skiles can't coach a star, Skiles is the one who's got to go...because Skiles coaching ability isn't going to win the bulls a championship by himself. He needs a star if he ever wants to make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs and he probably needs at least 2 stars if he wants to win the championship.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

At least we have a plausible explanation as to why Gordon is in bounding the ball.

Kind of makes sense. Skiles likes to play games.

Shame on this writer for offering an educated conjecture. He should simply wait for the facts to be released by Bulls management or Gordon, and then report on them. How does he know what’s going on in Skiles’, Paxson’s or Gordon’s mind??? Is he John Paxson, Scott Skiles, or Ben Gordon? I don’t think so.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Where theres smoke....Wow! 

Then some of the tidbits we have read all season long had a ring of truth to them? Or did this writer take those tidbits and make a story out of them? 

I am surprised that the majority of rest of the bulls writers did not write something like this. 

If this article is not true then skiles and paxson need damage control today! And fast. Especially if Gordon is not traded. 

I do agree with the writer on one thing. Gordon has superstar written all over him. A couple of years from now it could happen.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

this is an OPINION thing. 


gordon carrying skiles on his back? is that what he was doing in the first half last night?


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> At least we have a plausible explanation as to why Gordon is in bounding the ball.
> 
> Kind of makes sense. Skiles likes to play games.
> 
> Shame on this writer for offering an educated conjecture. He should simply wait for the facts to be released by Bulls management or Gordon, and then report on them. How does he know what’s going on in Skiles’, Paxson’s or Gordon’s mind??? Is he John Paxson, Scott Skiles, or Ben Gordon? I don’t think so.


Educated conjecture?  There's no facts to be released, unless you want them coming out for a public group hug every day. Gordon's play is improving, he's STARTING (which once was the basis for this argument), his minutes are increasing. The only thing this writer has now is the inbounding of the ball. I think Skiles did it because of all the pressure on "4th Quarter Ben."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

It's fine as an opinion piece, nothing more. When you keep starting all your sentences with "Let's just say..." or "Let's hypothesize that..." it shows the author doesn't really anything concrete upon which to base the piece.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Zeb said:


> There's no facts to be released, unless you want them coming out for a public group hug every day. Gordon's play is improving, he's STARTING (which once was the basis for this argument), his minutes are increasing. The only thing this writer has now is the inbounding of the ball. I think Skiles did it because of all the pressure on "4th Quarter Ben."


I disagree. There is the fact of Gordon in bounding the ball with under 1 second left, which does not make any sense from a basketball standpoint, IMO, but sure does make sense if there's some kind of passive aggressive pissing match going on.

Also, Paxson was supposedly "manning the phones" instead of going to the game last night. Why would he be doing that? What valuable player is most likely to be dangled on the Bulls? 

Why is Ben Gordon's name in most of the Bulls' trade rumors and not Kirk Hinrich or Luol Deng? 

The reason Gordon wasn't starting, IMO, was that he was horribly ineffective when they did start him. They gave him plenty of chances, both last season and to start this season.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Why is Ben Gordon's name in most of the Bulls' trade rumors and not Kirk Hinrich or Luol Deng?


Because he has the most trade value and is the most appealing player on the whole Bulls roster.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

Zeb said:


> Gordon's play is improving, he's STARTING (which once was the basis for this argument), his minutes are increasing.


Not only that but when we need a defensive stop late in the game, Skiles has been keeping Gordon in the game, instead of replacing him with Duhon.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. There is the fact of Gordon in bounding the ball with under 1 second left, which does not make any sense from a basketball standpoint, IMO, but sure does make sense if there's some kind of passive aggressive pissing match going on.


Well, I already gave one alternative explanation, but some people are always going to look for the worst scenario.



> Also, Paxson was supposedly "manning the phones" instead of going to the game last night. Why would he be doing that? What valuable player is most likely to be dangled on the Bulls?


Not much of an argument. Did you want Pax unplugging the phone? What does that have to do with Gordon?



> Why is Ben Gordon's name in most of the Bulls' trade rumors and not Kirk Hinrich or Luol Deng?


They're rumors. Why was KG heading to the Knicks yesterday for Penny and Frye? Because they're rumors. The media likes to create drama. Gordon has star potential, so they want to create drama between him and his coach over every little coaching move... it keeps you reading. 



> The reason Gordon wasn't starting, IMO, was that he was horribly ineffective when they did start him. They gave him plenty of chances, both last season and to start this season.


So what side are you defending now? Sounds like Coach made the right move, where's the drama there?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Zeb said:


> Well, I already gave one alternative explanation, but some people are always going to look for the worst scenario.


What explanation did you offer for Gordon inbounding the ball with under 1 second left?



> So what side are you defending now? Sounds like Coach made the right move, where's the drama there?


Sides? I'm just talking Bulls basketball.



Paxson is manning the phones instead of going to the games for some reason. Unless he's sitting there just waiting for the thing to ring.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Also, Paxson was supposedly "manning the phones" instead of going to the game last night. Why would he be doing that? What valuable player is most likely to be dangled on the Bulls?


well you can't have it both ways! shall i post that picture of the cobwebby phone again??

lol.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> shall i post that picture of the cobwebby phone again??


Yes, but it needs to be cleaned! Unless someone can be bothered to post a pic of Paxson with cobwebs on his ear.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

While "manning the phone" does seem to indicate that Paxson is actually using it, Paxson could be sitting next to the cobwebby phone gently cooing... "ring...... ring....... ring....."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> At least we have a plausible explanation as to why Gordon is in bounding the ball.
> 
> Kind of makes sense. Skiles likes to play games.
> 
> Shame on this writer for offering an educated conjecture. He should simply wait for the facts to be released by Bulls management or Gordon, and then report on them. How does he know what’s going on in Skiles’, Paxson’s or Gordon’s mind??? Is he John Paxson, Scott Skiles, or Ben Gordon? I don’t think so.


Facts are totally over-rated.

Anyway, its hard to tell if Rozner is engaging in pure speculation or if he actually knows something "off the record" and just won't commit to saying it. 

If its the former, its irresponsible and smacks of the writing of a simpleton. If its the latter, its cowardice. However, the latter would not only be cowardly on Rozner's part, but troubling about Skiles - which is the bigger issue.

If there is indeed a basis for this article, and that this is the true nature of the relationship between Skiles and Gordon, then that is messed up.

However, I have a really hard time believing that Skiles is so purely "anti-star". Paxson talks openly all the time about wanting to get a "star" for this team. Those two concepts don't mesh.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Facts are totally over-rated.
> 
> Anyway, its hard to tell if Rozner is engaging in pure speculation or if he actually knows something "off the record" and just won't commit to saying it.
> 
> If its the former, its irresponsible and smacks of the writing of a simpleton. If its the latter, its cowardice. However, the latter would not only be cowardly on Rozner's part, but troubling about Skiles - which is the bigger issue.


Is Rozner the type to engage in pure speculation? I don't think that's what he's known for.

He's either a simpleton or a coward. Ouch. Rough day for Barry Rozner.



> However, I have a really hard time believing that Skiles is so purely "anti-star". Paxson talks openly all the time about wanting to get a "star" for this team. Those two concepts don't mesh.


He does say this. No action though.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Is Rozner the type to engage in pure speculation? I don't think that's what he's known for.


I don't have any idea what he's known for. 



> He's either a simpleton or a coward. Ouch. Rough day for Barry Rozner.


If he's either of those, its a rough life - not just a day.

Maybe its the defense lawyer in me and I've been urreversibly programmed to look for, and care about, factual support. I can't help myself. 

My problem with the article is that he coyly claims to be "hypothesizing" in a wink-wink tone. If he knows something, sack up and write about it (cowardice). If he doesn't and he is just engaging in rank speculation (the simpleton's preference), then keep the pen in the well.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...2downey,1,7843873.column?coll=cs-home-utility - the anti Rozner column.



> I am such a huge fan of this guy's. I have been ever since I went to his NCAA tournament games. I love the way he shoots, the way he scores, and also the way that he shoots some more and scores some more.
> 
> Does he play defense like Jerry Sloan or Joe Dumars? Uh, no. Does he rebound like Dennis Rodman or pass like Magic Johnson or John Stockton? Afraid not.
> 
> ...


The whole thing is pretty goodl


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> While "manning the phone" does seem to indicate that Paxson is actually using it, Paxson could be sitting next to the cobwebby phone gently cooing... "ring...... ring....... ring....."


He also could be drinking on the job and going home and beating his wife at night.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

> And let’s say Paxson needs to deal Gordon to keep his coach sane. It doesn’t improve Gordon’s value by letting people know Paxson is eager to move him.
> 
> But if Gordon isn’t dealt by 2 p.m. today, everyone’s going to smile and say it’s all good, when it seems obvious that what’s best for Skiles and Gordon is an amicable divorce.


I love this part: "I'm right either way."

I don't believe a single word of this. As it was pointed out yesterday by DaBullz and k4e, if Paxson wants to move a player (i.e. Rose), he'd get it done easily.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Facts are totally over-rated.
> 
> Anyway, its hard to tell if Rozner is engaging in pure speculation or if he actually knows something "off the record" and just won't commit to saying it.


There's really not a whole lot unusual to this situation. Writers know more than they write all the time. At least, local writers tend to. If they don't hold anything back they burn bridges and contacts, and they find themselves looking for new jobs.

Cowardly is one way to put it, but sensible in light of reality is another. You can get the story out between the lines so it sells and 95% of folks know what you mean, or you can go the extra 5%, burn the people that gave you the juice in the first place, and get everything totally ****ed.

That's not the way someone who's brave operates. That's the way a fool operates.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Ignorant article.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Jeez, people are still on this inbounding thing? Hilarious.

Phil Jackson once called for an inbounds play with 1.8 seconds left in a playoff game and had by far his best player taking the ball out of bounds, and the shot wasn't called for by far his best player.

So I guess Phil hated Scottie? Scottie couldn't play for Phil?

Garbage.

Also, what's this BS about Pax having to miss last night's game because he was at the Berto waiting for trade offers? More complete BS.

Either that, or maybe the phones at the Berto aren't equipped with that newfangled *call forwarding*? And I guess Pax doesn't have a cell phone? Or Pax doesn't give out his cell phone number to other GMs?

What a joke!


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> There's really not a whole lot unusual to this situation. Writers know more than they write all the time. At least, local writers tend to. If they don't hold anything back they burn bridges and contacts, and they find themselves looking for new jobs.
> 
> Cowardly is one way to put it, but sensible in light of reality is another. You can get the story out between the lines so it sells and 95% of folks know what you mean, or you can go the extra 5%, burn the people that gave you the juice in the first place, and get everything totally ****ed.
> 
> That's not the way someone who's brave operates. That's the way a fool operates.


I'll keep all that in mind the next time I'm reading a Sam Smith column.


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

This article is silly. I was at the game last night and though Gordon was ice cold in the first half, he got a lot of time because he was playing very solid D against T.J. Ford (who is a nice, nice player). And hot on the heels of Ben playing some of his most consistent basketball to date. And logically, why would skiles be anti-talent? It's his job to win games. And if Ben can keep up defensive consistency, I doubt the conspiracy theories will continue to hold water.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> There's really not a whole lot unusual to this situation. Writers know more than they write all the time. At least, local writers tend to. If they don't hold anything back they burn bridges and contacts, and they find themselves looking for new jobs.


It is unusual. He's saying it without supporting it, not "holding it back".

I agree that writers hold stuff back. No doubt you are right and your listed reasons are the cause. But that isn't what this article is. 



> Cowardly is one way to put it, but sensible in light of reality is another.


If you are actually just exercising discretion and "holding back" then I would agree. But he is describing the worst possible scenario as reality, while playfully wink-winking that it is a hypothetical.

No one reading that thinks he's really dealing in hypotheticals. The inference of fact is thick as pea soup. If you are going to write about it, don't be a little sissy-boy coward. Sack up and do the piece. 

If not, you have no credibility and no balls.



> You can get the story out between the lines so it sells and 95% of folks know what you mean, or you can go the extra 5%, burn the people that gave you the juice in the first place, and get everything totally ****ed.


If you don't think that's the type of article that will burn a bridge with a coach or GM, then I'd like to talk to you about the purchase of another bridge that I know about. 



> That's not the way someone who's brave operates. That's the way a fool operates.


Speculation masked as fact is not brave. Its easy and it's the village idiot's argument. Fact masked as speculation is even worse. Barry Rozner is willing to walk right up to the line, wink at the readers and the team, but then say "Hey, I was just hypothesizing". If that ain't cowardly writing, I don't know what is.

Mike, if you like and support this type of drivel then more power to ya. It sells papers. People watch Fear Factor and The Littlest Groom. Titanic is the largest grossing movie of all time. 

And for what its worth, I'm not even totally sold on Skiles. This has nothing to with him. I just don't approve of this type of "journalism".


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I actually think Skiles has done a terrific job with Ben.

Much like Phil Jackson used to do with young players, he tried to put them in a situation where they can be successful to teach consistency. Gordon came off the bench last year to be instant offense, aka a chucker. Outside of a shaky start the beginning of this year, Gordon has slowly improved on his all-around game. His defense is worlds better than last year. Knowing what to do with the ball and running a set play is also leaps and bounds ahead of last year's progress--showing he can play at least spot minutes at the PG position. He really hasn't gotten any better at protecting the basketball or his handle, and I think that is where his size comes into play which frustrates Skiles. After a couple of careless turnovers, Skiles usually inserts Pargo, maybe to reinforce to Ben how to get it done against a taller player.

For example, against the Bucks last night, I don't think Gordon looked for his own shot until about 6:00 minutes into the first quarter. He was running decoy and deferring the ball to the low post, and he did it emphatically. He was playing like he knew what he needed to do with the basketball. His shot was not falling in the first half, but he was still productive while he was out there. If his shot was not falling his rookie season, he was a liability on the court.

I think Skiles likes Ben. I just think he is trying to bring him along very slowly, rather than potentially letting his ego get in the way of his development. For clarification, I don't believe Ben has a huge ego, but he sure loves being in the spotlight. If Skiles can mold Ben into a "Skiles guy," that's the best chance I see at Gordon reaching stardom. If he were on a different team, I think Gordon would draw comparisons to a young AI, who took years before his game developed and he finally "got it."


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

they're talking about the rozner article on espn right now. basically call it BS. 

silvy and jonathan hood today on the show.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't know much about Rozner, but we all know and trust our good friend and Rozner's collegue, Mike McGraw, and this nudge-nudge, wink-wink, know-what I mean? article completely flies in the face of McGraw's report from yesterday.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=158773



> The Bulls have several needs, most notably another inside player, a tall guard and a veteran leader. But they also are in good position this summer with two first-round draft picks and at least $15 million in cap room, *so Paxson doesn’t figure to make any bold moves*...
> 
> *Bulls guard Ben Gordon has been mentioned in a number of rumors, though none had any chance of happening.*


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

what a completely ridiculous article. 100% pure, conjecture. It's only purpose to try to stir things up. In that respect this Rosner person succeeded. I think it's incredibly irresponsible journalism to write and actually publish things such as this, but I've always been a firm believer in honesty and integrety.

What's even more fascinating are the reactions to this article. It really does help to show that folks will read and believe that which they want to believe and disregard anything else. I find it curious that an article can come out that states that no trades look to be on the horizon for the Bulls and then there are grumblings and complaints about Pax's inactivity and reluctance to do anything. We even get a picture of a phone covered in cobwebs. Then it's said that Pax wasn't at the game list night while "working the phones" and that is contrived into his chanting some sort of prayer waiting for the phone to ring. All the while Ben Gordon is blossoming into one helluva player and yet the Evil Coach Skiles is passive-aggressivly plotting his demise. He's never played better and yet somehow he's terribly unhappy (contrary to words which actually have been attributed directly to him) and his coach can't stand him. Let's all just disregard all those things and run with a completely made up article by a "journalist" who cites no actual facts, and has no actual sorces because it seems to fit in with their world view.

I'll tell you what. This board provides some serious entertainment.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I don't know much about Rozner, but we all know and trust our good friend and Rozner's collegue, Mike McGraw, and this nudge-nudge, wink-wink, know-what I mean? article completely flies in the face of McGraw's report from yesterday.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=158773


Not really. Rozner's article says Gordon and Skiles don't like each other. McGraw's article is about what Paxson will or won't do.


----------



## MuresansThimble (Nov 16, 2005)

article is ridiculous. Gordon has very bad habits that would irritate any coach not just Skiles. he jumps and then decides to pass. that's 8th grade level.

Hinrich's turnovers are typical for a PG. he doesnt have red flag parts to his game like Ben. Gordon has a lot more scoring talent than Kirk, and will one day probably far surpass him as a difference maker. 

but right now, a coach is exactly what Ben needs. his shot selection and reckless form are still things that a coach needs to get on. Ben also just happens to have less experience than Kirk. how this writer ignores all that, and attributes it to teachers-pet type stuff, is beyond me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'll keep all that in mind the next time I'm reading a Sam Smith column.


Smith's a pretty good case in point, actually. He pretty clearly has lots of contacts and passes his time with idle chatter instead of spilling his guts.



Ron Cey said:


> Mike, if you like and support this type of drivel then more power to ya.


Whether I like it or believe it doesn't really matter. It is what it is. Expecting to open up the paper and finding Woodward and Bernstein on the Bulls ain't gonna happen.

More importantly, it appears to be an opinion piece. There's enough odd facts out there that fit into the pattern he's put together that it's plausible. Hell, it's not like there aren't plenty of people here and in other places who haven't written pretty much the same thing. So I don't really see what's so outlandish about it that's getting everyones' panties in a bunch.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> what a completely ridiculous article. 100% pure, conjecture. It's only purpose to try to stir things up. In that respect this Rosner person succeeded. I think it's incredibly irresponsible journalism to write and actually publish things such as this, but I've always been a firm believer in honesty and integrety.
> 
> What's even more fascinating are the reactions to this article. It really does help to show that folks will read and believe that which they want to believe and disregard anything else. I find it curious that an article can come out that states that no trades look to be on the horizon for the Bulls and then there are grumblings and complaints about Pax's inactivity and reluctance to do anything. We even get a picture of a phone covered in cobwebs. Then it's said that Pax wasn't at the game list night while "working the phones" and that is contrived into his chanting some sort of prayer waiting for the phone to ring. All the while Ben Gordon is blossoming into one helluva player and yet the Evil Coach Skiles is passive-aggressivly plotting his demise. He's never played better and yet somehow he's terribly unhappy (contrary to words which actually have been attributed directly to him) and his coach can't stand him. Let's all just disregard all those things and run with a completely made up article by a "journalist" who cites no actual facts, and has no actual sorces because it seems to fit in with their world view.
> 
> I'll tell you what. This board provides some serious entertainment.


LOL...You know the story, it's either, or....

If pax trades Gordon today the board would be in a uproar! 

Pax stand pat? The board will be in an uproar...He cant win.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Not really. Rozner's article says Gordon and Skiles don't like each other. McGraw's article is about what Paxson will or won't do.



No. It _hypothesizes_ they don't like each other.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Smith's a pretty good case in point, actually. He pretty clearly has lots of contacts and passes his time with idle chatter instead of spilling his guts.


Half of what Sam writes is complete speculation without any factual basis (i.e. Seattle needing to move Ray Allen in his latest column). You were seemingly implying that Rozner, or any other writer/columnist, would not engage in simple speculation and always have credible facts to back up any written claims. I disagree and think Rozner's column is based solely on some questionable rumors from an earlier point in the season.

But maybe that's not what you're implying?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> LOL...You know the story, it's either, or....
> 
> If pax trades Gordon today the board would be in a uproar!
> 
> Pax stand pat? The board will be in an uproar...He cant win.


That sums up everythign perfectly. If Pax makes a trade and we bring in a p layer that burns our FA money posters will be saying, "So this is why we were saving up our cap for?"

or, if he stands pat, "Clearly John Paxson is in love with being a below average team and has no future plans..blah blah blah"

All i can say is that this Fiction Article by Rozner is like a wet dream for you Anti-Skiles/Pax people...A reporter with no evidence is using all conjecture in this article. Do you really think that Big Ben is running into Barry's arms telling him about his problems?!?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Half of what Sam writes is complete speculation without any factual basis (i.e. Seattle needing to move Ray Allen in his latest column). You were seemingly implying that Rozner, or any other writer/columnist, would not engage in simple speculation and always have credible facts to back up any written claims. I disagree and think Rozner's column is based solely on some questionable rumors from an earlier point in the season.
> 
> But maybe that's not what you're implying?


I'm implying that there's a big difference between "the news" and what are by definition opinion pieces. 

For example, there is absolutely a factual basis for Smith's collumn. Do a little research about the Sonics' financial situation. It sucks. And I don't mean in the "they're over the cap" sense... I mean in the actual "they've got a negative NOI" sense.

So whether or not the Sonics choose to do what Smith speculates on, it's certainly based in fact. They're in bad shape and there's certainly some logic, whether one agrees or not, to saying the smart thing for them to do is to trade away Allen and save themselves $70M or whatever it is in commited expenditure.

Similarly, there are plenty of credible facts to support Rozner's suppositions. Obviously they're opinions but its not like he's the first to look at Skiles and /gordon and think something's amiss. The inbounds, the refusal to give credit for im[rovements, the quick trigger on Pargo... its not all this stuff isn't out there already.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I'm implying that there's a big difference between "the news" and what are by definition opinion pieces.
> 
> For example, there is absolutely a factual basis for Smith's collumn. Do a little research about the Sonics' financial situation. It sucks. And I don't mean in the "they're over the cap" sense... I mean in the actual "they've got a negative NOI" sense.
> 
> So whether or not the Sonics choose to do what Smith speculates on, it's certainly based in fact. They're in bad shape and there's certainly some logic, whether one agrees or not, to saying the smart thing for them to do is to trade away Allen and save themselves $70M or whatever it is in commited expenditure.


That the Sonics are losing money is not factual basis for suggesting the need to move Ray Allen. The two are not mutally exclusive. Had Sam heard the Sonics were specifically looking to move Allen to alleviate their financial situation, that would have been a different story. As it is, it's purely speculation on Sam's part.

To give you a Bulls analogy, Paxson has mentioned a desire to obtain a superstar. Would linking Ben Gordon to every conceivable trade rumor for a star player have factual basis? No IMO.


----------



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

How is it that Gordon can play for Calhoun but now he's not equipped to play for Skiles? I think Gordon is made of alot tougher stuff then Rozner's view of him. Gordon is very coachable, he's not going to run from Skiles. 

And other thing, even the Skiles detractors have to admit that one of Skiles strong points is his out of timeout coaching decisions.You give Scott the benefit of the doubt, let the Ben Gordon inbounds pass go. It was one freekin play call.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Similarly, there are plenty of credible facts to support Rozner's suppositions. Obviously they're opinions but its not like he's the first to look at Skiles and /gordon and think something's amiss. The inbounds, the refusal to give credit for im[rovements, the quick trigger on Pargo... its not all this stuff isn't out there already.


I believe skiles responded to the notorious inbounds play with the assertion that Gordon was the guy to make that inbounds pass because he's the guy Skiles thought would make a good decision on the pass. I.E. he trusted Gordon over other guys to make a smart decision and not waste their only chance.

What would be your response to this? Is this more Skiles hate? Shame on Skiles for putting whom he thought was his best option for getting a good pass off in that play. What credible "facts" are you referring to? That Skiles trusts Gordon to make a good pass? That Gordon has written in his blog that he would love to stay here? That Gordon is playing more and better than he ever has? He's not only Mr. 4th quarter, but he's becomming Mr. Every Quarter. He's getting minutes and producing better on both ends of the floor than he ever has. Yup. Sure does sound like quite the acrimonious relationship there.

Read into this "article" whatever you wish. That's your perrogative. That you choose to ignore all the positives that also seem to go with Gordon/Skiles seems somewhat curious


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Gosh, when I first saw the title of the thread, I was in complete disbelief. There's no way Mike McGraw would write something like this.

I think Rozner has just picked up a habit from Vecsey, Mariotti, Sam Smith, et al: when all is quiet on the homefront, just make stuff up.

Wow, I could definitely be a journalist of that caliber.

"Best thing for Tyson Chandler and Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon is a trade"
"Eddy Curry misses the Berto Center, where he spent little to no time"
"Rumored trade to acquire Corie Blount falls apart when they remember who Corie Blount is"
"Kobe Bryant clamoring to be a good boy and play the right way under Scott Skiles"
"Terrell Brandon, now fully healed, considers Bulls' desperate need for another small guard"
"Benny the Bull found incapacitated and giggly in The Palace at Auburn Hills"


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> "Benny the Bull found incapacitated and giggly in The Palace at Auburn Hills"


:laugh:


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Similarly, there are plenty of credible facts to support Rozner's suppositions. Obviously they're opinions but its not like he's the first to look at Skiles and /gordon and think something's amiss. The inbounds, the refusal to give credit for im[rovements, the quick trigger on Pargo... its not all this stuff isn't out there already.


Those are not credible facts to support a case of a coach and player not getting along. But they are a basis for wild conjecture and speculation. So in that sense, Rozner's column is similar to the Sam Smith "Seattle is losing money -----> therefore, they need to move Ray Allen" type thinking.

Gordon is averaging the second most minutes on the team in the last two months, more than Deng, Duhon, and Chandler. If Skiles really hated Gordon, why would he increase his minutes?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> If Skiles really hated Gordon, why would he increase his minutes?


This is very sound reasoning and makes perfect common sense. 

However, I have been told many times on this board that Scott Skiles's giving Eddy Curry the second-most minutes per game on the Bulls last year should in no way be confused with Skiles's appreciation for Eddy or having anything to do with maximizing his team's chances for victory, so I'm forced to arrive at the same conclusion with respect to Gordon.

Back on topic--does anyone really think Barry Rozner woke up yesterday and out of thin air decided to write a column about Gordon and Skiles not getting along?

Seriously?

Obviously there's a little smoke here. I'm not gonna dredge up links, but there have been other published reports this season about a rift. 

The important things to consider are Rozner's sources and the quality of whatever information he's getting. Is it current? Is it accurate? Is the rift well under the bridge and something the team can work around?

Nothing more, nothing less. The "attack the source" game is just as tedious and predictable as any of the tedious and predictable things that people complain about around here.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If Skiles and Gordon really, really don't like each other, how long can they coexist? For a long time, or is it just a matter of time before there's a split?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This is very sound reasoning and makes perfect common sense.
> 
> However, I have been told many times on this board that Scott Skiles's giving Eddy Curry the second-most minutes per game on the Bulls last year should in no way be confused with Skiles's appreciation for Eddy or having anything to do with maximizing his team's chances for victory, so I'm forced to arrive at the same conclusion with respect to Gordon.
> 
> ...


Like death and taxes baby! The hits just keep on comming. I love this place!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I believe skiles responded to the notorious inbounds play with the assertion that Gordon was the guy to make that inbounds pass because he's the guy Skiles thought would make a good decision on the pass. I.E. he trusted Gordon over other guys to make a smart decision and not waste their only chance.
> 
> What would be your response to this? Is this more Skiles hate? Shame on Skiles for putting whom he thought was his best option for getting a good pass off in that play. What credible "facts" are you referring to? That Skiles trusts Gordon to make a good pass? That Gordon has written in his blog that he would love to stay here? That Gordon is playing more and better than he ever has? He's not only Mr. 4th quarter, but he's becomming Mr. Every Quarter. He's getting minutes and producing better on both ends of the floor than he ever has. Yup. Sure does sound like quite the acrimonious relationship there.
> 
> Read into this "article" whatever you wish. That's your perrogative. That you choose to ignore all the positives that also seem to go with Gordon/Skiles seems somewhat curious


Huh? I'm not chosing to ignore anything. I'm just pointing out that there are incidents that can lead people to interpret the situation that way. 

That you guys are trying so very hard to find something interesting here "seems somewhat curious" to me. I don't see what the big deal is either way and nothing in this article really even raised an eyebrow, much less my temperature. Some guy writes an opinion piece and everyone's freaks out about it. Maybe I'm just more tolerant than the average guy, but I don't really see what the big deal is about a guy who's paid to write opinion pieces... writing an opinion piece. My god... the horror!

And Frank... I'll bet you a case of the beer of your choice Ray Allen finishes his contract in a different uniform.

In any case, you two seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that I'm saying I 100% agree with everything they wrote. My point is not that I agree, but rather that I've always thought the "mob wielding pitchforks mentality" at the first sight of a someone who had a different opinion was pretty not all that productive.

But hey, if every wuns itchin' fer a hangin, I ain gonna stan in the way


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> That the Sonics are losing money is not factual basis for suggesting the need to move Ray Allen. The two are not mutally exclusive. Had Sam heard the Sonics were specifically looking to move Allen to alleviate their financial situation, that would have been a different story. As it is, it's purely speculation on Sam's part.


Yes... so what? He appears to be paid pretty handsomely to speculate about such things. If Sam heard specifically... he'd be writing a news piece, not a fact piece. Or... he'd still be writing an opinion piece because it's not worth it to anyone to go to the mat over such a thing, especially when it's not a certainty.

I spose I'm not sure where the great danger of a little bit of speculation comes in. That seems to be what people do in commentaries... they give their opinions and conjectures about things. Is there something wrong with that? Or is it just that you don't like his particular opinions and conjectures.

That's really the point. If you disagree with a guy and think he's wrong, that's a content issue. The rest of this stuff.. complaining about speculation in a piece that's by nature speculative... is talking about form. I don't really see the logic of that myself. I mean, what do you want to do, ban people from writing opinion pieces?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Yes... so what? He appears to be paid pretty handsomely to speculate about such things. If Sam heard specifically... he'd be writing a news piece, not a fact piece. Or... he'd still be writing an opinion piece because it's not worth it to anyone to go to the mat over such a thing, especially when it's not a certainty.
> 
> I spose I'm not sure where the great danger of a little bit of speculation comes in. That seems to be what people do in commentaries... they give their opinions and conjectures about things. Is there something wrong with that? Or is it just that you don't like his particular opinions and conjectures.
> 
> That's really the point. If you disagree with a guy and think he's wrong, that's a content issue. The rest of this stuff.. complaining about speculation in a piece that's by nature speculative... is talking about form. I don't really see the logic of that myself. I mean, what do you want to do, ban people from writing opinion pieces?


I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing anymore. I don't have a problem with speculation or opinion, which is clearly what Sam and Rozner like to do, but I was responding to your intial post in which you seemed to imply that Rozner has to have a clear and direct knowledge of the situation between Skiles and Gordon. I don't think he does, and most of it is conjecture based on some ambigious events (i.e. Gordon inbouding the ball, or the perceive quick hook by Skiles). We weren't discussing the merits of opinion pieces, just their validity.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

No one attacked the source, we attacked the article, because it has no... source. This wouldn't be the first time a column was written about rumors, but whatever.

The other articles said more of the same, Gordon's not starting so he must not be happy and want to be traded. Not even a so-called unnamed source or a team official who wishes to remain anonymous or a friend of a friend of Gordon's, or Gordon's mom demanding a trade.... no, it's been nothing but pure speculation.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> And Frank... I'll bet you a case of the beer of your choice Ray Allen finishes his contract in a different uniform.


If Ben Gordon is traded, must that mean Skiles and Gordon hate each other?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well ben is a star. ben is clutch. ben is the man. ben is all that and then some!

that's all fine and good. whoooohooo!

wonder what barry thinks *the best thing for the TEAM* would be? cause last time i checked there were 5 guys out there, not just ben.

and trading ben wouldn't be in the best interest of the TEAM at this point. unless we get the superstar that ben apparently is back in the deal!

but who cares about the TEAM when you can make up stuff like this. 



seriously.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Huh? I'm not chosing to ignore anything. I'm just pointing out that there are incidents that can lead people to interpret the situation that way.
> 
> That you guys are trying so very hard to find something interesting here "seems somewhat curious" to me. I don't see what the big deal is either way and nothing in this article really even raised an eyebrow, much less my temperature. Some guy writes an opinion piece and everyone's freaks out about it. Maybe I'm just more tolerant than the average guy, but I don't really see what the big deal is about a guy who's paid to write opinion pieces... writing an opinion piece. My god... the horror!
> 
> ...


That's all well and good Mikey. If I had the mistaken impression that you were treating this opinion piece as nothing more than that. My apologies.

I was going to write a somewhat long and lengthy retort but it just isn't worth it. I'll bow out of this thread. It's going downhill and I feel that I was pretty instrumental in taking it down and that's not what I want. People have opinions and that's all that they are. I have never (and will never) gone so far as to characterise them as mobs weilding pitchforks. Completely unnessary comment. You're an excellent poster and I enjoy reading your stuff. I'd prefer to leave it at that.

Peace.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The only way I'm trading Gordon in the next 45 minutes is if it is in a package to trade for Ray Allen or Kevin Garnett (I don't like any of the Boston deals until the offseason).


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Gordon is averaging the second most minutes on the team in the last two months, more than Deng, Duhon, and Chandler.


Why do I have nightmares of this quote coming back in perpetuity as a *kukoc4ever!* mantra?!?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> well ben is a star. ben is clutch. ben is the man. ben is all that and then some!


Ben is the MmmmMMMmaAAAAaaaaaSSSSSSsssssssttTTTTtttTTTEEeeeeeeeeeRRRRrrrr!!!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

they're talking about the article on the score!

one of the "b's" just said: i must be watching on a different tv!

the other "b" said he's never heard any of this purported feud stuff.

(sorry i can't keep the two of them straight!)


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> they're talking about the article on the score!
> 
> one of the "b's" just said: i must be watching on a different tv!
> 
> ...


Bernstein was the one who said he must be watching on a different TV. He's the short one of the two. :biggrin:

Both said the whole Skiles can't coach a star is silly. And Both said they have enough sources within the Bulls to know if there was a feud.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

narek said:


> Bernstein was the one who said he must be watching on a different TV. He's the short one of the two. :biggrin:
> 
> Both said the whole Skiles can't coach a star is silly. And Both said they have enough sources within the Bulls to know if there was a feud.




thanks narek.

(how do you tell if one is shorter if they're on the radio!? :smilewink )


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Since I think I might be the one who started all this by calling Rozner's article the work of either a coward or a simpleton, which it is, I feel the need to clarify something in light of the way this thread has gone.

(1) I have no problem with opinion articles. This was not an opinion article. It was a transparent allegation of fact clothed as a wink-wink hypothetical. Him saying Gordon should be traded is the opinion. The rest of the article was not.

(2) I'm not attacking the source. I'm attacking the style of the article. If you are going to write an article and blatantly imply the existence of a fact while teasingly calling it a "hypothetical" then you are a ****ing coward - pardon my language. Either write the article as fact or don't write it. If you are an "opinion" writer then stick to opinions unless you intend to support something as factual.

(3) I don't doubt that Gordon and Skiles have, and perhaps still do, clash. I don't doubt the possibility that Skiles doesn't get along well with "star" players, though I find that to be inconsistent with both his and Paxson's actual statements about not having a star to rely on. 

Peace to Barry Rozner, the most cowardly pussified simpleton belly-crawling the streets of Chicago today. 

Peace to you all.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

That article was a lot longer than it needed to be. All he said was...... 

*Skiles can't coach allstars. And I have unconfirmed hear say that Ben and Skiles don't like each other, so we should trade Ben.*

I still don't understand just based on the fact he didn't get along w/ Kidd he can't coach any stars. Even with the 2 not liking each ohter they won a lot of games. There is no way either Ben or Skiles are going around telling people they don't like one another, especially Skiles, if he spoke to anyone it would be Paxson who wouldn't have leaked it to the Daily Herald. And Ben just had that quote what yesterday about how he wants to make it hard for Pax to trade him.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We can't trade Gordon, he was the reason we made the playoffs last year, without his 22 double figure scoring 4th quarters, we'd be saying this teams garbage.


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

If he was being shopped, he didn't hurt his value with his play. If the Bulls can get a legit 4/5, I'm all for moving Gordon/Hinrich/Deng. Nevertheless, do any one you see any legit 4/5 on the market?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Facts are totally over-rated.
> 
> Anyway, its hard to tell if Rozner is engaging in pure speculation or if he actually knows something "off the record" and just won't commit to saying it.
> 
> ...


I basically agree. At best this article is poorly written and does an awful job presenting whatever inside info Rozner may have. At worst, it's fiction.

I'd encourage anyone defending Rozner to browse his archives on the Daily Herald site. For the sake of perspective I just did and IMO, he's generally pretty awful. The puff piece on the White House (why on earth he felt compelled to write one is beyond me) is just totally mind numbing. You have to go three articles deep just to find a quote in Rozner's archive.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Gordon has grown more comfortable with his role with every game since he was inserted into the starting lineup in late December.
> 
> *He disputed a published report that painted his relationship with Skiles as icy.*
> 
> "Coach Skiles has a set of principles and rules he wants his players to follow," Gordon said. "That's what young players need, and I understand that. I'm not really a self-centered person so if he takes me out or something, I can handle it. In the end, it will make me better."



http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,7297781.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,7297781.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


Mike had the same thing in the Herald this morning plus this tidbit:



> Gordon’s got mail: Anyone who sent Ben Gordon an e-mail through his myspace.com site, be patient. He didn’t spend much time online during the all-star break and fell behind in his correspondence.
> 
> “I’m up to like 500 e-mails right now,” he said. “I don’t know if I can get to all of them. It’s tough. I’ve been trying.”
> 
> ...


I don't think Ben realized how many people would respond. :biggrin: 

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I know alot of people here want to say there is no truth to this article, but thats just wishful thinking. Jim Calhoun reportedely said that Skiles never talks to Gordon last year. That Gordon was in the black about what Skiles plans for him were. Its clear that atleast Gordon isnt Skiles biggest fan. And its likely that the feeling is mutual. What baffles me is why Pax would choose Skiles over Gordon. Lets face it, its easier to find a competent coach then good basketball players. But Pax and JR should have told Skiles to **** himself last summer when Mr Do Right was bending them over in the contract negotiations. 

The one thing about the article I didnt like was the Hinrich comparison. 2 years ago, and even last year some, there was a double standard. But clearly the golden boy, until maybe the last 2 weeks has been Duhon.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,7297781.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



What do we expect him to say? I hate Skiles guts?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> What baffles me is why Pax would choose Skiles over Gordon.


This hasn't happened.

And, I'll point out again that I don't doubt that there is, or at least has been, tension between Skiles and Gordon. Although I'll qualify that by saying that Skiles appears to have lengthened Gordon's leash considerably.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Skils is a pretty good coach, but his antics eventually wear people down. He would be more successful in college using his Bobby Knight type coaching to intimidate and play mind games with players in order to manipulate them for his liking. Skiles can't STAND star players. Which is one of the reasons we won't see any in Chicago for a really long time. Skiles thinks he can win purely off 'Hoosier' style of basketball.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The MAMBA said:


> Skils is a pretty good coach, but his antics eventually wear people down. He would be more successful in college using his Bobby Knight type coaching to intimidate and play mind games with players in order to manipulate them for his liking. Skiles can't STAND star players. Which is one of the reasons we won't see any in Chicago for a really long time. Skiles thinks he can win purely off 'Hoosier' style of basketball.


That is pretty much the Skiles myth in a nutshell.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That is pretty much the Skiles myth in a nutshell.


But _is_ it a myth? What say we contact The Discovery Channel (or is it the Learning Channel?) and get the MythBusters to tackle this one. I betcha those two guys could come up with some really creative ways to test Skiles patience! A little robotic Allen Iverson that even shouts "Practice??!!?? We're talkin' 'bout practice??!!??"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> But _is_ it a myth? What say we contact The Discovery Channel (or is it the Learning Channel?) and get the MythBusters to tackle this one. I betcha those two guys could come up with some really creative ways to test Skiles patience! A little robotic Allen Iverson that even shouts "Practice??!!?? We're talkin' 'bout practice??!!??"


I'd watch. I love that show.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

That would be a good show, but unfortunately it's unnecessary.

We already saw what Skiles thinks of a guy who says "we don't get paid for winning in practice".

And isn't it disgusting that Skiles actually expects his players to practice hard, play defense, and run the offense to get good shots?


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That is pretty much the Skiles myth in a nutshell.


How is it not a myth? More fact backs my statement than yours. Why would it be a myth? If it is reported by so many, wouldn't there be at least some truth to it? He can barely handle Ben Gordon, let alone a full fledged superstar...
If they aren't white and/or named Kirk Hinrich...Skiles has insecurity issues with superstars. You can tell by the way he speaks that he doesn't like superstars. Let him stick to his 'good jib' aka 'hoosier' players and let the team float in mediocrity for the rest of his tenure. Skiles is a :clown: .


----------

