# WSCR Reports



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*7/7/04, 1:00pm sportsnews update:* 

The Bulls and Knicks are still trying to put together a S&T for Crawford.

Brian Cardinal would _love_ to play for the Bulls.

Good news on both fronts. If JYD ends up being part of a sign and trade package with Jamal then Cardinal becomes an excellent replacement for Jerome. In addition, if Brian feels that strongly about signing with Chicago, even though he knows that Chandler's the starter, then what we'd have is a productive, hard-working player (and a very good shooter) who would accept his role as a complimentary member of the rotation and who would be more interested in team success than individual achievement.
:greatjob:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Kismet, any idea of the principals in this trade (from NY side)?

We've heard O.Harrington mentioned before around trade deadline '04 and he has an ending contract. Kurt Thomas' name has been thrown out there :no: I could stomach Tim Thomas I guess or maybe a Penny for AD swap too. The fact that JYD is getting thrown in there is not half bad.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

All this NY talk has me real nervous. No other team has been mentioned yet and as we know too well, the Bulls manage to leak everything. NY has nothing that we want/need at this point.

Cardinal sounds great if we can unload JYD.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I have a feeling this is going to be a lot like the Al Harrington deals with Indiana right around the draft. Lot's of talk and speculation with no real results. I have a feeling both teams are trying to dump their unwanted salaries and neither side is willing to take on more garbage. Depending on what is being bantered about, I'll give Pax credit for not simply giving in and doing a deal just to get "value" for Jamal. If something gets done it'll benefit the team and if not, Pax won't have been bullied into making a deal by the Knicks and Jamals' agent.

Stick to your guns Pax. Don't settle in trading Jamal. You don't *have* to do a deal.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Dont believe everything you hear

The Knicks still want to talk to Wallace and Bryant BEFORE even talking about Jamal


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I have a feeling this is going to be a lot like the Al Harrington deals with Indiana right around the draft. Lot's of talk and speculation with no real results. I have a feeling both teams are trying to dump their unwanted salaries and neither side is willing to take on more garbage. Depending on what is being bantered about, I'll give Pax credit for not simply giving in and doing a deal just to get "value" for Jamal. If something gets done it'll benefit the team and if not, Pax won't have been bullied into making a deal by the Knicks and Jamals' agent.
> 
> Stick to your guns Pax. Don't settle in trading Jamal. You don't *have* to do a deal.


I agree - we don't have to any deal - only if it benefits us.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pax has shown the world that he won't do a deal just to do a deal. I'm convinced.

Now I want him to show us that he can make a deal that makes us better.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Dont believe everything you hear
> 
> The Knicks still want to talk to Wallace and Bryant BEFORE even talking about Jamal


Sheed and Kobe have both cooled bigtime on NY. Hence the increased riff-raff over the Jamal S&T....


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Kismet, any idea of the principals in this trade (from NY side)?
> 
> We've heard O.Harrington mentioned before around trade deadline '04 and he has an ending contract. Kurt Thomas' name has been thrown out there :no: I could stomach Tim Thomas I guess or maybe a Penny for AD swap too. The fact that JYD is getting thrown in there is not half bad.


Don't know anything. This whole free agency process has been shrouded in mystery as opposed to last season when every mother and his son knew that Pax wanted to bring Pippen aboard. That suggests there really is something going on, and it may extend to other interested teams as well. No GM wants to have to waste time soothing ego's when their players hear they may be on the move. That's why I think that out of respect for potentially traded players on every side you'll hear nothing out of either Thomas, Paxson or any other GM who may be involved in negotiations. Crawford's the RFA, so we'll certainly read statements in the press about him.

New York doesn't care about caps or the LT. Witness Thomas' most recent remark about assuming Jerome Williams' and/or Eddie Robinson's contract: Asked if he'd take on a bad contract to get Crawford, Thomas said, "If the player is a player we like and can help us, it wouldn't be that big a problem." But if Crawford is demanding more than the mid level exception then Thomas has no choice but to meet Paxson's terms. The two GM's are playing poker right now. I'm sure there are a number of player combinations being discussed. And some of them may even prompt the inclusion of a 3rd team.

As an example, lets say Kurt Thomas needs to be part of the deal. But Paxson doesn't want his contract. Well, maybe Mark Cuban in Dallas would be happy to acquire KT. So now we may have Dallas involved because they have a player the Bulls are interested in (my guess is that it would be Antoine Walker). But this is just an example. These things take time to sort out. And to my knowledge, if a S&T is facilitated, it couldn't be announced until 7/14 anyway.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Pax has shown the world that he won't do a deal just to do a deal. I'm convinced.
> 
> Now I want him to show us that he can make a deal that makes us better.


Yeah, trading Rose & Marshall for AD & JYD wasn't "doing a deal just to do a deal"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Sheed and Kobe have both cooled bigtime on NY. Hence the increased riff-raff over the Jamal S&T....


not to mention the fact that LA's refusal to do a sign and trade pretty much has NY screwed in putting together a Kobe package that works.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, trading Rose & Marshall for AD & JYD wasn't "doing a deal just to do a deal"


I suppose it would be more accurate to say "learned his lesson about..."


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I suppose it would be more accurate to say "learned his lesson about..."


lets hope thats accurate.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

again, Dont believe everything you read. While we chat about Thomas, he is planning on seeing Wallace and Kobe. nothing here is immenent.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...0707,0,2010077.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines



> Knicks' president Tuesday admitted his chances of landing the Lakers star are "less than zero." The percentage chance of getting Rasheed Wallace away from NBA champion Detroit is only slightly higher.
> 
> With the opening of the free-agent signing period coming up a week from Wednesday, <b>it's looking more and more as if the Knicks' sights are focused squarely on Chicago combination guard Jamal Crawford.</b>
> 
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Let's get this logic straight.

Pax blabbers about getting Pip and we do. So he's not blabbering about anyone and that means there's something up?

Seems more like he's not blabbering because there's nothing to talk about.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Let's get this logic straight.
> 
> Pax blabbers about getting Pip and we do. So he's not blabbering about anyone and that means there's something up?
> ...


I'm hoping that Pax has learned not to blabber so much. He seems to have improved, ever so slightly, in the past two months.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RealFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that Pax has learned not to blabber so much. He seems to have improved, ever so slightly, in the past two months.


May well be, but there's no logic to suggest that's what's really going on. I would say he blabbered about drafting gordon #3, for example.

Peace!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RealFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that Pax has learned not to blabber so much. He seems to have improved, ever so slightly, in the past two months.


Not really, we blabbered that we loved Gordon and Deng and those are the guys we took. We just got lucky in that no one else believed we'd be crazy enough to take yet another PG with the #3 pick and in that Deng's cowardly lion performance and the inexplicable desire of the Mavs to trade up to get Devin Harris sent him into a free fall


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, trading Rose & Marshall for AD & JYD wasn't "doing a deal just to do a deal"


I believe Pax thought, as I did, that Rose was a very negative influence on the team as a whole. He decided he'd do what he had to do to get rid of him.

I don't think Pax feels the same about Crawford. The difference here is that Crawford and his agent seem to think they're worth a lot more than Pax thinks they are worth.

I understand, also, that Reinsdorf specifically instructed Pax to be as cryptic as possible so that the Bull fanbase would have plenty to talk about during the "offseason".


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I believe Pax thought, as I did, that Rose was a very negative influence on the team as a whole. He decided he'd do what he had to do to get rid of him.
> ...


i always thought that was a sham. Rose is many things and some of them negative but a cancer , history has shown him not to be. Whenever a team loses a cancerous figure there is always one player who speaks out about that player , in chicago no one did.

in indiana no one did,

i think Pax was dying to make his stamp on the team and the pippen signing after a month was not going to be it so he used the poor start to can cartwright and make a trade the team didn't need and crippled it for the entire season (no small forwards) to gain players who duplicated things they had at the positions they were coming to play.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> i think Pax was dying to make his stamp on the team and the pippen signing after a month was not going to be it so he used the poor start to can cartwright and make a trade the team didn't need and crippled it for the entire season (no small forwards) to gain players who duplicated things they had at the positions they were coming to play.


Could be. I was glad to see Rose go, though. I'm sorry it took Donyell to make it happen.

If the trade was not to get rid of Jalen, then why did we make it?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I agree we had to get rid of Rose , he was the last guy U'd want to lead your team (and imo even be on it) - and we had to make a 'bad' trade to lose him...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i always thought that was a sham. Rose is many things and some of them negative but a cancer , history has shown him not to be.


Rose may have not been a cancer in the sense that he was a disruptive force. But in his position as team leader, I still whole-heartely believe that he was setting a poor example (i.e. not the type of example Paxson wanted). He was, for lack of a better word, a slacker. An anti-Jordan. This is the reason Paxson felt the need to get rid of him. If Rose were not in position of team leader, it might have been different.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

as bad as Rose apparently was, lets remember that he led the Bulls to a plus 10. Without him, -7. Example or not, he had a positive effect on the bottom line. That can not be denied


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> as bad as Rose apparently was, lets remember that he led the Bulls to a plus 10. Without him, -7. Example or not, he had a positive effect on the bottom line. That can not be denied


True, that cannot be denied.

But sometimes you have to take a step back before taking multiple steps forward. Best example that comes quickly to mind is the Bulls winning fewer games in Phil Jackson's first year as head coach than they had the year before under Doug Collins.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> True, that cannot be denied.
> 
> But sometimes you have to take a step back before taking multiple steps forward. Best example that comes quickly to mind is the Bulls winning fewer games in Phil Jackson's first year as head coach than they had the year before under Doug Collins.


Sure

But was Rose really the reason we did so poorly? Afterall, he was probably the best player on an Indy team that got to the finals. He was a winner in college. What I never got was how he led us to a 10 win + season as our best player, and he was a bum, but Kirk was our best player and he led us to a -7, and he is a genius. I just cant get my hands around that contradiction. Kneepad, YOUR NOT GUILTY OF THAT, so dont take that as a slight


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> True, that cannot be denied.
> 
> But sometimes you have to take a step back before taking multiple steps forward. Best example that comes quickly to mind is the Bulls winning fewer games in Phil Jackson's first year as head coach than they had the year before under Doug Collins.


Can't take too many steps back. There's a toilet behind us.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Could be. I was glad to see Rose go, though. I'm sorry it took Donyell to make it happen.
> ...


Crawford needed a lot of minutes at SG. Management wanted to take a good look at Hinrich and Crawford as a backcourt tandem. Those things weren't going to happen often enough as long as Rose was part of the team. 

Hinrich missed the first 5 games recovering from a severe viral illness. JC saw nearly 40mpg during that time. When KH returned Jamal's minutes tailed off significantly. How could Paxson have properly evaluated Crawford heading into restricted free agency unless he saw him paired with KH on a regular basis? Rose was not part of the Bulls future. And he played absolutely miserable basketball during the West Coast trip. In a sense, Paxson may have bagged the season to give Jamal his opportunity to prove his future value.

No one was going to take Rose without a sweetener. Marshall was the sweetener. After this season Marshall becomes an unrestricted free agent. Would the Bulls have been able to re-sign him next summer? And at age 32, would they want to? 

The trade with Toronto was made with the future in mind. Davis and Williams were acquired to _back up_ Curry and Chandler. Injuries, poor conditioning and ERob's attitude foiled those plans.

But JC got his minutes. And Pax got to see plenty of Crawford and Hinrich as a backcourt pair. So in that sense the trade was worthwhile. Now, if everyone stays fairly healthy this season Davis and Williams will fullfill their roles as second line players very effectively. Crawford will or will not be part of Chicago's future. However that issue turns out, at least Paxson will act based on having seen JC perform instead of splitting minutes with Hinrich and Rose.

So lets put the issue of Rose's impact on team morale aside for a moment and consider the importance of giving Crawford a thorough opportunity to show what he can do.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> ... consider the importance of giving Crawford a thorough opportunity to show what he can do.


I agree.

I was clicking on NBA.com on JC's numbers.

Only 13 players in the league took more shots last year.

Yea, I would say he got a chance.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Rose may have not been a cancer in the sense that he was a disruptive force. But in his position as team leader, I still whole-heartely believe that he was setting a poor example (i.e. not the type of example Paxson wanted). He was, for lack of a better word, a slacker. An anti-Jordan. This is the reason Paxson felt the need to get rid of him. If Rose were not in position of team leader, it might have been different.


then i ask a question , who leads then?

it wasn't going to be Pip because he is hurt and well it appears finished.

Curry didn't put in the work , ditto tyson .

kirks a rookie and JC has as we see now no security to even stay on the team .

AD, & JYD no longer garner that kind of respect either . 

so basically pax made the team rudderless , the pacers had no problem making the finals under Rose's lazy command (although it was most likely equal parts reggie and smits in addition to him) i dont believe he was needed to go because all he does on the court is help his team win i have heard he is an annoying personality but so what? The nba isn't supposed to be filled with girl scouts its supposed to be filled with the best ball players in the world.

the best players are either dominant player or players in their prime who can play and right now the only guy on the whole bulls team in their prime is e-rob....E-ROB...this is the guy who is left or better yet this is the guy Pax has left the bulls with . The guy with the best case to be a clubhouse lawyer i have ever seen. He is the best small forward on the team (granted that makes it the weakest position on the bulls) and he sits while arguably the worst 2 players on the team play ahead of him. He is already known as a somewhat lazy player and someone who doesn't take basketball seriously . but if he chimes in "this team doesn't care about winning because they benched me for 2 players who cant play" 

who is going to argue ? especially considering there was some speculation his benching came form an argument between him and skiles.

who is going to say "um they are doing this for the greater good " (bear in mind dupree is already gone)

Pax has spoken before about a culture of losing , well the best way to aviod that is to try to win and they aren't doing that , and the next best way is to bring in winners , and the player he has brought in haven't to this date been good enough to win .

the player this team that was a winner and was good enough to consistently bring about wins was rose and he traded him for players not as good, whatever his reason was the result is that it did more to add to the bulls losing than jalen's presence likely would have.

and it cost us donyell too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Crawford needed a lot of minutes at SG. Management wanted to take a good look at Hinrich and Crawford as a backcourt tandem. Those things weren't going to happen often enough as long as Rose was part of the team.


Because Rose was our SF?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree.
> ...


Ummmm, who did you want him to pass it too?

Curry got plenty of passes when he played his 21 minutes a game.

Hinrich got his chances too.

After that, Crawford should pass it to???????? Come on, he was given the ball everytime the offense stalled. He took alot of bad shots, but he made alot of bad shots too.

Some of you act like he had a lot to work with. Hinrich was our best player from a hustle stand point. But if you wanted anyone taking the offense and taking over you only had one choice - Crawford.

Don't say Curry cause he was gassed just getting up from the bench.

Hinrich hit the offensive rookie wall and couldn't hit a backboard some nights.

If you are going to evaluate just from stats.....you're gonna miss the real truth.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> 
> If you are going to evaluate just from stats.....you're gonna miss the real truth.


I think the whole point is that JC got plenty of minutes and plenty of shots due to the Rose trade.

Whether you like what you saw is certainly the Rorshack test on these boards.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Because Rose was our SF?


JC and KH never started together in the backcourt while Rose was on the team. They were finally paired together as starters two weeks after the trade. And that's basically the way it stayed the rest of the season.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Because Rose was our SF?


Cartwright did not want both Rose and Crawford in the lineup at the same time because they were both liabilities on defense.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Dont believe everything you hear
> 
> The Knicks still want to talk to Wallace and Bryant BEFORE even talking about Jamal


Rlucas was right.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...7bulls,1,1263873.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

*Knicks President Isiah Thomas flew to California on Wednesday for a long-shot attempt to woo free agent Kobe Bryant, thus putting the more realistic chance of trading for Jamal Crawford on the backburner.

Thomas is expected to fly to Seattle to meet with Crawford, although no date has been scheduled. It's also possible Crawford will visit New York.*


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

KC Johnson's FA update: The Bulls remain in the mix for free agents Anthony Peeler, Brian Cardinal and Toni Kukoc. 

Those are a couple of interesting names. We'd previously heard about Cardinal and E. Williams. Now we can add the names of Anthony Peeler and Toni Kukoc to the list. It's interesting that back when the whole Wally to Chicago talk began a number of years ago the stumbling block to making the deal happen was Minnesota's insistance that Peeler be part of the deal. Krause, of course, refused and nothing ever developed after that. Now it seems that Peeler is on Paxson's short list of free agents.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> KC Johnson's FA update: The Bulls remain in the mix for free agents Anthony Peeler, Brian Cardinal and Toni Kukoc.
> 
> Those are a couple of interesting names. We'd previously heard about Cardinal and E. Williams. Now we can add the names of Anthony Peeler and Toni Kukoc to the list. It's interesting that back when the whole Wally to Chicago talk began a number of years ago the stumbling block to making the deal happen was Minnesota's insistance that Peeler be part of the deal. Krause, of course, refused and nothing ever developed after that. Now it seems that Peeler is on Paxson's short list of free agents.


Brian Cardinal, please. Peeler will have a Kendell Gill-esque impact on our team (little to none) and Kukoc will provide one 3 pointer and his trademark turnstile defense. No gracias.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But was Rose really the reason we did so poorly? Afterall, he was probably the best player on an Indy team that got to the finals. He was a winner in college. What I never got was how he led us to a 10 win + season as our best player, and he was a bum, but Kirk was our best player and he led us to a -7, and he is a genius. I just cant get my hands around that contradiction. Kneepad, YOUR NOT GUILTY OF THAT, so dont take that as a slight


No, I can't say Rose was the sole reason the Bulls did so poorly.

However, looking towards the future, it seems clear that Pax did not believe Rose was the guy to lead this team. I've laid out specific reasons previously which I will not repeat here because this is all water under the bridge at this point. In short, his personality, his style of play, his lack of off-season dedication-- and who knows what other factors-- were not the tone Pax wanted set with the entire team.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> No, I can't say Rose was the sole reason the Bulls did so poorly.
> 
> However, looking towards the future, it seems clear that Pax did not believe Rose was the guy to lead this team. I've laid out specific reasons previously which I will not repeat here because this is all water under the bridge at this point. In short, his personality, his style of play, his lack of off-season dedication-- and who knows what other factors-- were not the tone Pax wanted set with the entire team.


Knee,

What are your thoughts on the contradiction?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Brian Cardinal, please. Peeler will have a Kendell Gill-esque impact on our team (little to none) and Kukoc will provide one 3 pointer and his trademark turnstile defense. No gracias.


Whatsa matta, SD...didn't you like Peeler's forearm shot to Garnett's chin? Nothin' wrong with havin' a mean SOB on the floor every now and then. :grinning:


----------



## WookiesOnRitalin (Jan 22, 2004)

Isn't Peeler a pretty damn good shooter?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> then i ask a question , who leads then?
> 
> it wasn't going to be Pip because he is hurt and well it appears finished.
> ...


I would contend that leaders are not appointed by management. They rise to the position be earning the respect of their teammates. I don't believe Rose had earned that respect-- and if he had, it was for all the wrong reasons.

The Bulls are a young team, and I expect as they mature a leader (or leaders) will emerge. Chandler is a possibility. Hinrich is. JWill was. Gordon now is. Deng is a possibility. AD and JYD can still lead by example in how they play the game, take care of their bodies, and handle the rigors of the season. But there's a reason Pax is stocking the roster with young guys who have come from winning environments-- these guys are more likely to abhor the cycle of losing that has been with the team for the last 5 years and do something to reverse it.

And I couldn't disagree more about how to develop a "winning culture". Playing talented, but lazy, selfish, malcontent, or otherwise flawed players might get a team from 20 to 40 wins. But history has shown that such players rarely lead teams to championships. In fact, in thinking back over the seasons of NBA ball I've witnessed in my lifetime, I'm having trouble coming up with a single championship team that was led by a Rose-like player who was not obsessed with winning in general and in particular winning an NBA championship.

Pax needs to turn the reigns over to the young guys who have won on lower levels and let them set the tone. One (or more) of them has to step up and start setting the tone of refusing to lose.

It will happen. You watch.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> What are your thoughts on the contradiction?


What contradiction?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> What contradiction?


the one where Rose is a bum after leading us to a +10 season and Hinrich is a genius after leading us to a -7


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

if we still had artest, miller, mercer......we could actually get any big time player of them.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> the one where Rose is a bum after leading us to a +10 season and Hinrich is a genius after leading us to a -7


There are so many assumptions in this statement that it's almost impossible to analyze.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> the one where Rose is a bum after leading us to a +10 season and Hinrich is a genius after leading us to a -7


Pretty simple. I don't think the addition of Rose was the sole reason the Bulls were +10 and I don't believe his loss was the reason they were -7. There were many other mitigating factors.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

IMHO, Rose *thinks* he's a LOT better than he really is and that leads him to try to do things he's really not that good at like shooting a game winning shot over 2 or 3 defenders, many times while other players were wide open and in position for a higher percentage shot. Also, he seemed to have problems sharing the spotlight. Whenever one of the Bulls' youngsters were having a good game Mr. Rose would try to take over the game himself instead of sticking with the hot player. 


There was one game in particular where Eddy had 22 points after 3 quarters and the Bulls were comfortably ahead. In the fourth Jalen starts going 1 on 2 and taking wild shots. Well the game ended up being tied with 2 minutes to go. Jamal & Eddy scored the last 8 points with Jalen calling for the ball on each possession. Eddy ended up with 26 points but he should have had 40! Maybe that would have boosted his confidence and we'd have a more mature & focused center by now. 


That's just one example but there were many times when Rose would jack up ill advised shots after another player on the team had gotten hot and started getting more attention than him.

When the Bulls first aquired Jalen I was skeptical, but after his first game in Houston I thought he was the saviour. In the beginning he shared the ball and basically it was him that taught Tyson & Eddy how to execute a pick and roll. But somewhere along the way he decided that he might as well pad his own stats rather than tutor a bunch of kids. That's why he had to go and, IMHO, getting rid of him was more important than what we got back. Just like a lot of people want Artest back but they forget that Tyson, Eddy & Jamal (as well as some coaches) were afraid of Artest. That created an unproductive atmosphere and that's why Artest had to go at all costs too.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

Reply to the initial post. I went to Purdue and I'm pretty sure Cardinal is a 6'6" SF....could be wrong


----------

