# Skiles tells Gordon to look in mirror



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> As for Gordon, he called the flap "a misunderstanding'' and said he meant no harm with the comments.
> 
> "I was asked a specific question,'' Gordon said. "It was almost like the guy asked me, 'Why are you standing in the corner not being aggressive, trying to get the ball?' I was trying to answer it best I could. I didn't mean it in any way.''
> 
> ...


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull272.html

Brian Hanley is on the score right now and he says his article was cut in half. Right when it got to the good part.

Why is Skiles so unfairly harsh on the kid. Why not go to Gordon privately and address it, which it seems like he did, then keep it in house? Why does Skiles have to throw him under the bus like that? 

It'll be interesting how Gordon will respond tonight.

listen to the the score right now.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> Why is Skiles so unfairly harsh on the kid. Why not go to Gordon privately and address it, which it seems like he did, then keep it in house? Why does Skiles have to throw him under the bus like that?


Maybe the same could be said about Ben "I need more touches" Gordon?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

complete with video.



http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp

top item.

ben needs to shut up about the touches, especially after a night when he touched the ball plenty, it just didn't go in for him.

yes, he was frustrated. whatever. play defense and the offense will come.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

spongy, i didn't get to tune into the score in time (am listening now)...what else did hanley say??

also - it is possible that duhon gets the nod to start tonight in place of ben to try and contain williams better.

i also thought the comments about ben being "at one speed" in game two were accurate from skiles.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ben must want a KOBE/IVERSON amount of touches...that's what it sounds like...


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> spongy, i didn't get to tune into the score in time (am listening now)...what else did hanley say??
> 
> also - it is possible that duhon gets the nod to start tonight in place of ben to try and contain williams better.
> 
> i also thought the comments about ben being "at one speed" in game two were accurate from skiles.


 well they had Craig Sager on and Sager asked Pete Myers during game 2 why Ben was benched and Pete answered that his defense wasn't good enough.

before that during the transition between North and them, they were talking about trading Gordon because it doesn't seem like Skiles gets along with Ben.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm the first guy to bust on players for complaining to the media about "touches" and crap like that. I hate it when players do that. Hate it. I'm old school and hypocritical, I know. But typically have no problem with a coach talking about players to the media, but I have a big problem with the players talking about the coach (mostly). 

But I think too much is being made of Ben's comments. By the media. By the fans. And now by Skiles. Thats right, I'm taking Gordon's side on this. Its a first. He should have thought about it a little bit more before he said it. It was a minor media error on his part. But its not a big deal. This is an example of a manufactured story, not a real story, in my opinion.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

You'd think that in a series where the other team was averaging 113 points per game this kind of thing would not be a story.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Skiles has been looking for an opportunity to publicly bash Gordon for a while and he's finally done it. I sense an odd glee behind some of his comments. I hope he's happy.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_mirror, mirror on the wall, tell the coach i want the ball_


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

I don't understand why you people are *****ing and moaning about Gordon. A reporter asked him why he isn't being aggressive and why he just sits in the corner. I've asked that all year, because I notice that all he does is sit in the corner a lot. What is Gordon supposed to say. That he sits in the corner on offense because he wants to? Was he supposed to say no comment? Ozzie Guillen said it best that when a person says no comment, that means there really is a problem.

Gordon had a point. All he does is sit in the corner. He had a right to blame the offensive set, because he doesn't want to be/look lackadaisical on offense. He doesn't want to be just a shooter, and maybe that is what the offense is restricting him to do. He wants to be aggressive and have the ball in his hands. What the the hell is the problem with that?

A lot of you are showing so much bitterness over the fact that we show so much love for Gordon. It is because when he is on, we have the ability to win games. He had the complete game in game one. He was driving and hitting outside shots. He was moving around, and maybe that is the best for him. It's much better then sitting in the corner and becoming a nonfactor on offense.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

SPMJ said:


> Skiles has been looking for an opportunity to publicly bash Gordon for a while and he's finally done it. I sense an odd glee behind some of his comments. I hope he's happy.



I agree with you. Skiles seems to have a hair across his *** about not wanting Ben to outshine Hinrich. He and Pax publicly gush about Kirk and he's only the 3rd or 4th best player on the team! How can you justify building the team around Kirk?? Shouldn't they be building around Deng who is admittedly the player with the most upside on the team? How about catering to your team's leading scorer, a proven 4th quarter commodity?

This whole situation is retarded and I fear will lead to Gordon's departure.

:curse:


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Future said:


> I don't understand why you people are *****ing and moaning about Gordon. A reporter asked him why he isn't being aggressive and why he just sits in the corner. I've asked that all year, because I notice that all he does is sit in the corner a lot. What is Gordon supposed to say. That he sits in the corner on offense because he wants to? Was he supposed to say no comment? Ozzie Guillen said it best that when a person says no comment, that means there really is a problem.
> 
> Gordon had a point. All he does is sit in the corner. He had a right to blame the offensive set, because he doesn't want to be/look lackadaisical on offense. He doesn't want to be just a shooter, and maybe that is what the offense is restricting him to do. He wants to be aggressive and have the ball in his hands. What the the hell is the problem with that?.


Exactly.


Why not run BG off multiple screens, or better yet, let him bring the ball up!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If Kirk is playing 2 guards, let BG handle the ball. He seems to do well whenever he plays point.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Bulls4Life said:


> I agree with you. Skiles seems to have a hair across his *** about not wanting Ben to outshine Hinrich. He and Pax publicly gush about Kirk and he's only the 3rd or 4th best player on the team! How can you justify building the team around Kirk?? Shouldn't they be building around Deng who is admittedly the player with the most upside on the team? How about catering to your team's leading scorer, a proven 4th quarter commodity?
> 
> This whole situation is retarded and I fear will lead to Gordon's departure.
> 
> :curse:


We currently have no #1 guy to build a team around. Deng could be the Pippen to Jordan, but Jordan he is not (meaning I see his upside as an All-Star second gun, not a #1 option).

If we have to build around anyone, it's Chandler since he is our only big with a lot of upside and there are so many holes in his game. If we find the perfect piece to complement Chandler then we can maximize his effectiveness. Until then, we'll all see the holes we have been seeing all season long unless he starts making dramatic improvements.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

Ben need to bust 50 points tonight on Hinrich, Skiles, and Pax


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

bre9 said:


> Ben need to bust 50 points tonight on Hinrich, Skiles, and Pax


Those types of statements are exactly why the media writes these type of stories. Drama sells more articles than game analysis, even if the drama is created by the media.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think this is all much ado about nothing myself.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its pretty clear what Paxson likes. Hinrich of course. Nocioni as well. That constant effort, dive on the floor mentality is what he is trying to breed here. Gordon is never going to be that kind of player, IMO, and therefore, will never be the type of guy that Paxson and Skiles laud. Paxson and Skiles love guys like they were... effort.... grit.... average talent.... this team is being built in their image.... and that image is not Ben Gordon.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Future said:


> I don't understand why you people are *****ing and moaning about Gordon. *A reporter asked him why he isn't being aggressive and why he just sits in the corner. I've asked that all year, because I notice that all he does is sit in the corner a lot. What is Gordon supposed to say. That he sits in the corner on offense because he wants to? Was he supposed to say no comment? Ozzie Guillen said it best that when a person says no comment, that means there really is a problem.*
> 
> Gordon had a point. All he does is sit in the corner. He had a right to blame the offensive set, because he doesn't want to be/look lackadaisical on offense. He doesn't want to be just a shooter, and maybe that is what the offense is restricting him to do. He wants to be aggressive and have the ball in his hands. What the the hell is the problem with that?
> 
> A lot of you are showing so much bitterness over the fact that we show so much love for Gordon. It is because when he is on, we have the ability to win games. He had the complete game in game one. He was driving and hitting outside shots. He was moving around, and maybe that is the best for him. It's much better then sitting in the corner and becoming a nonfactor on offense.


Amen.

I find it amusing when people complain about guys like Krause who wouldn't give an honest and frank answer about anything, or about athletes who just answer questions with a bunch of meaningless "one game at a time" cliches, and then in the next breath complain about Skiles or Paxson or Gordon not "keeping it in the house."

The reporters ask these questions hoping to get a real answer. I have to say that as a fan, in general, I appreciate the real answers we get. We just have to remember that the Bulls are not just spouting off. They are answering questions directed to them. Sometimes discretion is called for -- I think Paxson's repeated Eddy trashng after the trade was uncalled for. For the most part, I don't think the comments phase the players or the coaches too much (things like the Brown/Starbury fued being notable exceptions, and I believe those kind of blood feuds are really a manifestation of deeper problems between the two). However, I think for the most part fans make too much of comments in the press.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty clear what Paxson likes. Hinrich of course. Nocioni as well. That constant effort, dive on the floor mentality is what he is trying to breed here. Gordon is never going to be that kind of player, IMO, and therefore, will never be the type of guy that Paxson and Skiles laud. Paxson and Skiles love guys like they were... effort.... grit.... average talent.... this team is being built in their image.... and that image is not Ben Gordon.


That's sad.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty clear what Paxson likes. Hinrich of course. Nocioni as well. That constant effort, dive on the floor mentality is what he is trying to breed here. Gordon is never going to be that kind of player, IMO, and therefore, will never be the type of guy that Paxson and Skiles laud. Paxson and Skiles love guys like they were... effort.... grit.... average talent.... this team is being built in their image.... and that image is not Ben Gordon.


So you're saying that Paxson would rather have 4 Hinrichs and 4 Nocionis than 1 Eddy Curry and 7 Duhons?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> So you're saying that Paxson would rather have 4 Hinrichs and 4 Nocionis than 1 Eddy Curry and 7 Duhons?


I believe it was 14 Duhons.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Tonight should be interesting, I think the starters are being kept secret. If Gordon sees playing time like Deng did in Game 1, then there are some serious issues.

I love Ben, and would hate to part with his potential and points, but his size worries me, which is why I would've done the Pierce deal or might do one for a good 2 guard or big man in the offseason


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Bulls4Life said:


> That's sad.


Sad because its accurate? Or sad that anyone could believe that it is accurate? 

Paxson and Skiles only want average talent. Sure. Thats what all coaches and GMs pine for - average players. I remember how much Paxson hated the fact that he had to share the court with above average talents like Pippen and Jordan. I mean, you could just tell. He looked all "Hey, if these guys were just a little bit less talented, we'd be much better". 

I remember when Skiles had that 30 assist game. You could tell he was reluctant to throw it to Shaq because he was pissed at how good Shaq was. I bet Skiles thinks if he'd had a less talented center like Ronny Seikaly he would probably have dropped 33 dimes at least.

Right? Stuff like this is so utterly devoid of logic it just kills me.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty clear what Paxson likes. Hinrich of course. Nocioni as well. That constant effort, dive on the floor mentality is what he is trying to breed here. Gordon is never going to be that kind of player, IMO, and therefore, will never be the type of guy that Paxson and Skiles laud. Paxson and Skiles love guys like they were... effort.... grit.... average talent.... this team is being built in their image.... and that image is not Ben Gordon.


i would agree with your first sentence if you substituted Skiles for Paxson. Let's not forget that Paxson drafted Gordon before he drafted Deng. Almost two full years in to his Bulls career, Ben Gordon has turned out almost exactly like one might have hoped out of college. Save perhaps any real development as a point guard, perhaps due to other players on the roster playing that spot, Gordon has flashed impressive offensive skills highlighted by steaky but sometimes white hot shooting. He has also proven to be incredibly productive in clutch moments. 

Paxson got exactly what he should have expected. So how can we conclude that he doesn't like Gordon? 

Skiles is another issue, and I read that pretty much like you do.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Paxson and Skiles *only want average talent*. Sure.


Where was this said?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I believe it was 14 Duhons.


It was, but I shortened it down to 8-man rotations because of the following:










(Eddy Curry and the 7 Duhons, or maybe it's 6 Duhons because Sweetney appears to be on the far right)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Where was this said?


Sorry. You are right. This is what you wrote:



> Paxson and Skiles *love guys like they were*... effort.... grit.... *average talent*.... *this team is being built in their image.... and that image is not Ben Gordon.*


I guess I should have described the position taken as being that PaxSkiles *prefer* average players - which is equally preposterous.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Omigod! An NBA player (mildly) complained about not getting enough scoring opportunities and an NBA head coach (mildly) told the player to shut up and play.

We need to cast blame...find a villain...speculate about deeper, devious motives and cataclysmic consequences.

I'm with TB#1. Questions were asked and honestly answered. Gordon and Skiles don't agree on what caused Ben's sub-par performance.

Big game tonight. Skiles - coach better. Gordon - play better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

transplant said:


> Omigod! An NBA player (mildly) complained about not getting enough scoring opportunities and an NBA head coach (mildly) told the player to shut up and play.
> 
> We need to cast blame...find a villain...speculate about deeper, devious motives and cataclysmic consequences.
> 
> ...



yep! like I said, much ado about nothing...


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> yep! like I said, much ado about nothing...


Ace, you really do seem to get overly wordy sometimes. Ya might want to work on that.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

transplant said:


> Ace, you really do seem to get overly wordy sometimes. Ya might want to work on that.



lol, yeah thats what happens when you get a worthless $60,000.00 english degree!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> \
> I guess I should have described the position taken as being that PaxSkiles *prefer* average players - which is equally preposterous.


Why do you think Skiles at least is seemingly hard on Ben Gordon while Paxson publicly states that Nocioni and Hinrich are the types of players that represent what they are trying to build here? I thought that was the issue being discussed. 

Gordon, on the other hand, is the one always rumored to be on the trading block.

It sure seems like Hinrich and Nocioni are the favorite sons of this current administration. 

And yah, I think Skiles likes guys that play like he did. We'll see what happens if he ever gets a chance to deal with a true star level player again. Many think Gordon is that type of player, although I don't see it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Dopey









Grumpy









Doc









Happy









Bashful









Sneezy









Sleepy









Snow White


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1
[img said:


> http://unlimited.nba.free.fr/tradevanhorn.jpg[/img]
> Snow White



But I think this is a much better Snow White:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But I think too much is being made of Ben's comments. By the media. By the fans. And now by Skiles. Thats right, I'm taking Gordon's side on this. Its a first. He should have thought about it a little bit more before he said it. It was a minor media error on his part. But its not a big deal. This is an example of a manufactured story, not a real story, in my opinion.


Once it's being made too much of by Skiles I don't see how it can accurately be called manufactured. 



kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty clear what Paxson likes. Hinrich of course. Nocioni as well. That constant effort, dive on the floor mentality is what he is trying to breed here. Gordon is never going to be that kind of player, IMO, and therefore, will never be the type of guy that Paxson and Skiles laud. Paxson and Skiles love guys like they were... effort.... grit.... average talent.... this team is being built in their image.... and that image is not Ben Gordon.


I don't see how Hinrich can be said to have "average" talent. In terms of his pure physical abilities he rated out pretty highly in his draft class. He's got prototypical size and above average strength and quickness for a PG.



transplant said:


> I'm with TB#1. Questions were asked and honestly answered. Gordon and Skiles don't agree on what caused Ben's sub-par performance.
> 
> Big game tonight. Skiles - coach better. Gordon - play better.


I pretty much agree with this, but here's a couple things to consider, but at the same time I seriously doubt Skiles has any set where Ben's instructions are to "go stand in the corner". That being said, if Skiles can't make Gordon from that stream, he's got to lead him somewhere else, because we damn sure aren't winning anything without him.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Sad because its accurate? Or sad that anyone could believe that it is accurate?
> 
> Paxson and Skiles only want average talent. Sure. Thats what all coaches and GMs pine for - average players. I remember how much Paxson hated the fact that he had to share the court with above average talents like Pippen and Jordan. I mean, you could just tell. He looked all "Hey, if these guys were just a little bit less talented, we'd be much better".
> 
> ...


It's especially ridiculous when Paxson is on record saying he wants a "star."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

narek said:


> But I think this is a much better Snow White:


Come on, Van Horn isn't white, he's _translucent._


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> It's especially ridiculous when Paxson is on record saying he wants a "star."


But only a "gritty" star with "average talent." Kind to children and animals.

Shorty shorts, knee socks, head and wristbands, brush cut. Unapologetically caucasian. Killer standing set shot. Bounce passes. Granny freethrows. Solid Republican.

So goes the cartoon version of John Paxson's philosophy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But only a "gritty" star with "average talent." Kind to children and animals.
> 
> Shorty shorts, knee socks, head and wristbands, brush cut. Unapologetically caucasian. Killer standing set shot. Bounce passes. Granny freethrows. Solid Republican.
> 
> So goes the cartoon version of John Paxson's philosophy.


I prefer the cartoon version of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.


























... and so forth...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

You think PaxSkiles is a fascist regime? Really? Just because they expect players to take their jobs seriously and to work hard at it?

As my undergraduate degrees were in history and politcal science, and I remain somewhat of a history buff, I found the cartoon interesting and funny. I'm just wondering how seriously you are taking the comparison in the shot to the administration.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Come on, Van Horn isn't white, he's _translucent._


I've seen Sangaila in person - he's the whitest person I've ever seen in my life. And there are a lot of really, really white people in Wisconsin (including me!). We need a shot of them standing together.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Come on, Van Horn isn't white, he's _translucent._


 :yes:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But only a "gritty" star with "average talent." Kind to children and animals.
> 
> Shorty shorts, knee socks, head and wristbands, brush cut. Unapologetically caucasian. Killer standing set shot. Bounce passes. Granny freethrows. Solid Republican.
> 
> So goes the cartoon version of John Paxson's philosophy.


Pax gave to the John Edwards presidential campaign so so much for that Republicanism (and Reinsdorf gives more to Democrats and Republicans.) :biggrin:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As my undergraduate degrees were in history and politcal science, and I remain somewhat of a history buff, I found the cartoon interesting and funny. I'm just wondering how seriously you are taking the comparison in the shot to the administration.


I actually hadn't thought about it at all in relation to PaxSkiles... it was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read the "cartoon version". It reminded me of the last time I saw a "cartoon version" of something. (Hayek is sort of a mental father of GMU economics and hence I come across lots of this sort of stuff).



> You think PaxSkiles is a fascist regime? Really? Just because they expect players to take their jobs seriously and to work hard at it?


But if I _had _to make a comparison, it wouldn't even turn on those factors. Facism (and true socialism, which was actually what Hayek was arguing against, though the cartoon form sort of misrepresents this by obviously aping Nazi Germany) are disgusting for a whole host of reasons, but among them is certainly the vast inequality and dishonesty it creates. I don't think it makes the Bulls a "facist" organization... that's a nonsense statement that doesn't have any practical value, actually. But I do think the whole "we're free to criticize, you're not" schtick one sees from them (as you mentioned with the Curry deal earlier in the year) is a valid comparison (at least when there is real, valid criticism made in an attempt to improve things - if it's just complaining from one side or the other it's something different).

Aside from that, I don't see a lot, except perhaps that, just like how in the cartoon a plumber was forced to work as a carpenter the Bulls are forcing Janero Pargo to work as a professional basketball player, a task for which he's clearly ill-suited and unwilling.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Once it's being made too much of by Skiles I don't see how it can accurately be called manufactured.


Thats a good point. How about "media driven"? I guess my point is that I don't think its as big a deal as it was being made out to be. As Coach Cartwright used to say: "Its a bag of shells."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Why do you think Skiles at least is seemingly hard on Ben Gordon while Paxson publicly states that Nocioni and Hinrich are the types of players that represent what they are trying to build here? I thought that was the issue being discussed.


Thats not what I'm discussing. What I'm discussing is your absurd position - repeatedly stated throughout the year - that PaxSkiles are afraid of talent and prefer average players. 



> Gordon, on the other hand, is the one always rumored to be on the trading block.


By who? Fans? Media? Paxson? Skiles?

And why? Fear of star power? Indeed, its the opposite. He's rumored as trade bait as part of hypothetical trades *intended to bring in a star*. 



> It sure seems like Hinrich and Nocioni are the favorite sons of this current administration.


I personally can't see whats wrong with that. Those guys rock.



> And yah, I think Skiles likes guys that play like he did.


Not the same thing as having an aversion to talent, though, is it? 



> We'll see what happens if he ever gets a chance to deal with a true star level player again.


"We'll see" is right. But you don't actually ever wait for that. Conclusions are so much easier.



> Many think Gordon is that type of player, although I don't see it.


On that, you and I basically agree. Though I like what I've seen lately an awful lot. He's slowly starting to turn me - but I'm not turned yet.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

nm.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thats not what I'm discussing.


Well, that is what I was discussing, and its also what the context of the thread was.



> What I'm discussing is your absurd position - repeatedly stated throughout the year - that PaxSkiles are afraid of talent and prefer average players.


Not sure what thread you are talking about. Not this one.

"prefer average players"
"afraid of talent"
"aversion to talent"

Not said on this thread, and that's not my position.

I'd say its more of an aversion to control loss. If they can get that perfect combination of talent and jib, yes, that's preferable. But, for Paxson, jib trumps talent in the case of a tie, IMO, especially since Skiles is his hand picked coach. We'll see how that approach fares in the NBA. Skiles deals best with good soldiers… not free spirits or strong willed individuals, IMO. I’ll be interested to see how he deals with Ben Gordon and his desire for touches, if he’s on the team anymore, once Gordon has moved on from his rookie contract. Hinrich and Nocioni seem like the type of guys that will toe the line regardless of their status in the league.

There were several posters, before I even read this thread, who were commenting on a difference between how Skiles/Paxson deal with Hinrich versus how they deal with Gordon, or why they appear to be “hard” on Gordon while Hinrich rarely is criticized. I was offering an opinion as to why, which I think is the reason. Feel free to think its “absurd.”

Paxson may intend to bring in a "star"... but the jib constraint may prevent that. 




> "We'll see" is right. But you don't actually ever wait for that. Conclusions are so much easier.


Its an opinion. What is yours? How long until the Bulls escape the 1st round? Will Paxson ever get us to the ECF with this core/approach? Is this the core that can contend for a title? How do you think Paxson should go about getting us there, if the last question is no? Is around .500. 7 seed and 1st round playoff exit acceptable? How many years until we have the 3rd best record in the East again?

“wait and see” is a lame response, IMO. But, its safe and can’t be picked apart, so I guess it’s a winner.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Its an opinion. What is yours?


My opinion is that PaxSkiles like talent and want to contend.



> How long until the Bulls escape the 1st round?


I don't know. It took MJ and Scottie 4 years. Maybe these guys will do it faster.



> Will Paxson ever get us to the ECF with this core/approach?


We'll see. The "MJ/Scottie approach" took 6 years of playoff appearances to get to the ECF. 



> Is this the core that can contend for a title?


No. But its part of it.



> How do you think Paxson should go about getting us there, if the last question is no?


I think he needs to keep doing what he's doing. That, or trade for LeBron James and draft Greg Oden. 



> Is around .500. 7 seed and 1st round playoff exit acceptable?


This year it is.



> How many years until we have the 3rd best record in the East again?


Hard to say. 



> “wait and see” is a lame response, IMO. But, its safe and can’t be picked apart, so I guess it’s a winner.


Its also rational.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

(never mind)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> At least you agree its lame.


 :biggrin: No. I really don't though. I don't think its fair or logical to conclude things like that without actually seeing if there is a basis for it. You haven't seen Skiles get the opportunity to manage an independent star during his tenure as Bulls coach.

I believe in assessing actual evidence and in giving folks the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Thats just how I look at things. When others don't take the same approach and rush to conclusory judgments, it irritates me. Thats my fault. I shouldn't let it seep through into the threads. 

You have your approach and I have mine. I'll drop it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> lol, yeah thats what happens when you get a worthless $60,000.00 english degree!


I almost offered to trade you for my worthless 60000 dollar Biochemistry degree.


----------

