# What Do You Guys Think Pax Will Do Before The Deadline?



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Will he make a move?


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

no, unless its PJ Brown's expiring contract for another expiring contract.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

At this point, Noc is playing his best ball at PF, almost looking as good as SOME of the players we've dreamt of trading for.

Do you disrupt the chemistry now and make a move? or stand pat and wait til' the offseason?

As good as the Deng/Gordon/Noc tandem is, they still aren't on an NBA finals level IMO.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

unless it's a blockbuster deal that favors the bull, i think pax will be conservative and wait this season out.
if the team appears to be a challenger for the east (which this season they could be considered as such), why gamble with chemistry with no real guarantee? 
:chill:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Zilch


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

agreed nothing,because he it's more of his scared to make a move,then if he wants to make a move. We still need a post threat,because watching sweets play D is horrible.I pax's was a real good GM he would move sweet's and or p.j for a post threat.And don't give me that bs that thier isn't any out thier i could name u plenty,it's just if those team's want to move them.Still we are 1 good bench post threat from being we need to be,because all this jump shooting stuff doesn't work come playoff time.You need post player's to do well in the playoff's.So pax need's to do something but won't,let's just pray that we can do well without a move,or sweet's learn's to move his feet or loses about 10lbs come june,so don't hold your breathe


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

I think Paxson will make a move b4 the deadline. I really doubt its going to be for a post-player tho, No team is going to trade a big for a small. I think Paxson might just go after a consist scorer/proven winner like Ray Allen or something. I think without having a post-player you cant win a Championship is just a basketball myth just like 0-3 in the playoffs is a guarenteed lose.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

taurus515th said:


> I think Paxson will make a move b4 the deadline. I really doubt its going to be for a post-player tho, No team is going to trade a big for a small. I think Paxson might just go after a consist scorer/proven winner like Ray Allen or something. I think without having a post-player you cant win a Championship is just a basketball myth just like 0-3 in the playoffs is a guarenteed lose.


um, how exactly is Ray Allen a 'proven' winner? He's never won ANYTHING

I'm sure he'd much rather Young Gordon's 19 per game over Old Ray's 22 per game...and he comes much cheaper


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)




----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

The ROY said:


> um, how exactly is Ray Allen a 'proven' winner? He's never won ANYTHING
> 
> I'm sure he'd much rather Young Gordon's 19 per game over Old Ray's 22 per game...and he comes much cheaper


Just because Ray Allen has not won a Championship doesnt mean that he is not a proven winner because he has won many awards such as the

All-NBA Second Team: 2005 
All-NBA Third Team: 2001 
6-time NBA All-Star: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 
NBA All-Rookie Second Team: 1997 
NBA Joe Dumars Sportsmanship Award: 2003 
NBA All-Star Weekend Three-point Shootout champion: 2001 
Holds NBA record for most three-point field goals made in a regular season with 269 in 2005-06 [1]. 
NBA regular season leader, three-point field goals attempted: 2006 (653) 
NBA all-time career three-point field goals made: 2nd with 1,798 (as of December 3, 2006) 
Holds NBA record for most seasons leading the league in three-point field goals made with 3 (2001-02 with 229, 2002-03 with 201, 2005-06 with 269) 
Shares NBA record for most three-point field goals made in one half with 8 (April 14, 2002 vs. the Charlotte Hornets). 
Holds Milwaukee Bucks franchise records for most consecutive games played (400), most career three-point field goals made (1,051), and most career three-point field goals attempted (2,587). 
Member of the 2000 United States Men's basketball team, which won gold at the Sydney Olympics. 

Next, i never did say i would trade Ben Gordon for him. In an interview, Ben Gordon said he wants to be like a Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton type player then y not get Ray Allen. Ben Gordon has not developed his consistency yet but will in the future ofcourse but wut if we have Ray Allen to be a good vet he could really learn from on the team. Ray Allen will not only be here to help Ben Gordon but also help the team because he can score 20+ points a nite.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

taurus515th said:


> Just because Ray Allen has not won a Championship doesnt mean that he is not a proven winner because he has won many awards such as the
> 
> All-NBA Second Team: 2005
> All-NBA Third Team: 2001
> ...


Those personal accolades don't make him a winner in my book...

If we had Ray Allen, we'd have no need for Ben Gordon. Where would he find minutes?

Ray's gonna be making 18 million in the 2009/2010 season, that's nutts


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Those personal accolades don't make him a winner in my book...
> 
> If we had Ray Allen, we'd have no need for Ben Gordon. Where would he find minutes?
> 
> Ray's gonna be making 18 million in the 2009/2010 season, that's nutts


Well thats ur opinion if you dont think those accolades make him a winner in ur book i think differently.

If we had Ray Allen there would be a need for Ben Gordon. He would find minutes.

If you can recall Paxson said if Ben Wallace had not signed a contract he would have tried to sign Peja a guard/forward 

so if that had happen we would have had Kirk, Peja, Gordon, Thabo, Deng, Nocioni Thomas. I dont think Paxson would sign a player if he or our core players would not have enough playing time. Im sure there will be enough minutes for Ben Gordon.

Also yea Allen is making 18 million so wut more money to resign Thomas and Sefolosha.

If im not mistaking KG is making 24 million in 2008/09 which is Ben Gordon and Luol Deng's contract combined if which there rookie contracts ended and they we making around 40-50 million.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

taurus515th said:


> Well thats ur opinion if you dont think those accolades make him a winner in ur book i think differently.
> 
> If we had Ray Allen there would be a need for Ben Gordon. He would find minutes.
> 
> ...


Trying to understand how a bunch of 2nd rate awards make him a winner...but whatever...

more money to sign Tyrus and Sefolosha? what about Luol, Noc & Ben?

You can't continue to stack quality players, give em all minutes and keep them ALL happy, it's NOT gonna happen.

Keep Ben, no need for Ray Allen


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Ray Allen is Calhoun's favorite player by far. I think that says a lot about Allen being a winner. With that being said, I don't see the Bulls trading for him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Zilch


Why? 

Because he's a chicken?

Because you don't see Garnett/Pau/other-desirable-player becoming available?

Because if they do become available, you think the cost will be too high and Paxson will wisely reject it?

Because Jerry won't authorize it? 

"Zilch" can either be the right thing or the wrong thing. Do you think it will be the right thing or the wrong thing?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Minor move. Trade for Ely.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Why?
> 
> Because he's a chicken?
> 
> ...


Are there anymore Viktor Khyrapa's out there to go after?

Assess the team. Good enough to win the championship? 

If no, then he's got to make a rather big deal. I don't see it happening. 

We're "good enough" (nt meaning championship quality) to do nothing.

Then there's the leastern conference. Not a whole lot of really tough teams to beat to get to the finals, eh? Once you get there, anything can happen.

Roll the dice.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If no, then he's got to make a rather big deal. I don't see it happening.


You didn't answer any of my questions, all of which apply equally to this statement.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Why?
> 
> Because he's a chicken?
> 
> ...


I think every player can be had, if you're willing to pay the right price.

I haven't seen Paxson set his eyes on a particular player and go out and get him VIA TRADE.

For whatever reason.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I think every player can be had, if you're willing to pay the right price.
> 
> I haven't seen Paxson set his eyes on a particular player and go out and get him VIA TRADE.
> 
> For whatever reason.


You still aren't committing to anything. 

And when you say "the right price" I can only assume you mean the right price to the "seller" of the player.

But I assume that you would agree with me that the seller's price isn't always the right price for the Bulls. Correct? 

And if it is too steep of a price for a Garnett or a Pau, you would agree with me that not making a big trade by the deadline is a good thing, right? 

There are thousands of Knicks fans that will tell you that Zeke's penchant for "setting his eyes on a particular player and going out and get him VIA TRADE" has far more often than not proven to be the wrong thing to do.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

He'll make every non-Deng attempt to wrestle away KG, and probably fail.

If he made inquiries about Camby, maybe he'll settle for another defense-oriented big (in exchange for PJ et al). and Ely interests me, i hope him too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You still aren't committing to anything.
> 
> And when you say "the right price" I can only assume you mean the right price to the "seller" of the player.
> 
> ...


The right price is what it takes to get the player. i don't know any other way to define it.

It seems to me that Yell and the draft pick for Toronto's pick and the chance to draft Wade was the right price, and a no-brainer even without 20-20 hindsight. So I still say Pax hasn't identified a player (he did say he wanted Wade beforehand) and gone out and gotten him..

As for Zeke, the knicks were in horrible shape going forward when Zeke took over. Between last season and this, it looks like they're headed in the right direction.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The right price is what it takes to get the player. i don't know any other way to define it.


So whatever McHale asks for Garnett is the right price and Paxson should just do it? End of discussion?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> So whatever McHale asks for Garnett is the right price and Paxson should just do it? End of discussion?


Geezus. I didn't say that, now did I?

Whatever McHale agrees to for Garnett is what it would take to get Garnett.

If Garnett were on the market, and Pax _really_ wanted him, he'd have to make the kind of offer that McHale would accept over other teams' offers.

DO YOU think Paxson is going to make a major play for Garnett?

to that, I ...

:lol:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Geezus. I didn't say that, now did I?


Well, thats my point, DaBullz. You aren't saying anything at all. 



> Whatever McHale agrees to for Garnett is what it would take to get Garnett.


I agree with that. But do you think Paxson should pay whatever that is? 

If the asking price was too high, and Paxson refused to play ball, is it still a failure? Or is it a success?

Or will you just sit around, wait, and refuse to commit to anything like you are doing in this thread, and if no trade happens start posting pictures of telephones and blasting Paxson for not making a trade? 



> If Garnett were on the market, and Pax _really_ wanted him, he'd have to make the kind of offer that McHale would accept over other teams' offers.


But should he? In YOUR opinion?



> DO YOU think Paxson is going to make a major play for Garnett?


Yes, I do. 

But that doesn't mean a failure to effect such a trade will be a mistake. I would love to have Garnett. But I can also think of dozens of variations on trade proposotions that I DON'T want to see Paxson accept for Garnett. 

Thats the point.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't see Paxson doing a deal for Garnett during the regular season.

If we're playing good basketball with regularity come trade deadline, I doubt we make a move unless it's trading expiring contracts for another or another guy on his rookie contract.

If not, I'd expect Noc or Gordon to be shopped with PJ for a big with not many years left on the contract (or at an attractive longer-term contract).

I think that the liklihood of no move is greater than the liklihood of at least a semi-major move (before the trade deadline).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, thats my point, DaBullz. You aren't saying anything at all.


LOL. You're leading the witness and expect me to say what you want me to say. No dice. I absolutely answered the question asked in this thread "What will paxson do?" -- ZILCH

If you want to ask another question - "Should Paxson go after KG?" -- that's already been discussed ad nauseum and I've made my feelings known.

he'd look good in a bulls uniform, but we still have never seen Paxson make a trade where we don't get the smelly end of the stick.



> I accidentally edited DB here when I meant to be quoting him. Sorry DB! -jnrjr79


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I predict something along the lines of PJ Brown for Kurt Thomas (thus preserving the consolidation trade option for next year). 

Buckle your seatbelts, the excitement will be intense!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> LOL. You're leading the witness and expect me to say what you want me to say. No dice. I absolutely answered the question asked in this thread "What will paxson do?" -- ZILCH
> 
> If you want to ask another question - "Should Paxson go after KG?" -- that's already been discussed ad nauseum and I've made my feelings known.
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I won't ask you anything else. Doesn't seem to be much point in it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I predict something along the lines of PJ Brown for Kurt Thomas (thus preserving the consolidation trade option for next year).
> 
> Buckle your seatbelts, the excitement will be intense!


That sounds more like Pax's kind of deal.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> LOL. You're leading the witness and expect me to say what you want me to say. No dice. I absolutely answered the question asked in this thread "What will paxson do?" -- ZILCH
> 
> If you want to ask another question - "Should Paxson go after KG?" -- that's already been discussed ad nauseum and I've made my feelings known.
> 
> he'd look good in a bulls uniform, *but we still have never seen Paxson make a trade where we don't get the smelly end of the stick.*


Do you truly believe that? That's a fairly untenable position, IMO.

It seems like you do everything to avoid the thrust of Ron Cey's argument. You say the *right* price is whatever it takes to get the player. So, isn't it possible that paying the right price for KG or whomever could damage the Bulls? Certainly it could.

The point is that just because a deal for a marquis player is possible doesn't make it the right thing to do. Everything depends on the deal on the table. The impression I get from you is that you believe because you assume Pax will not get a top-flight player via trade this year, you also believe Pax sucks. And vice versa.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you truly believe that? That's a fairly untenable position, IMO.


I look at PJ Brown and just shake my head. He's the latest in a stream of deals that brought us players that are mostly useless. More names that immediatly come to mind: JYD, Othella, Songaila, Pitakowski, etc., etc.

The results of the Curry trade are in. We lost.



> It seems like you do everything to avoid the thrust of Ron Cey's argument. You say the *right* price is whatever it takes to get the player. So, isn't it possible that paying the right price for KG or whomever could damage the Bulls? Certainly it could.


I answered his questions, he just didn't like the answers.

Of course you could decimate the team by making an absurd trade. The ultimate question is whether KG and whatever is left is a contender. Probably 

Though I don't advocate making a trade for KG, as if he's THE piece we need to make it over the top. Though it does seem we need one or more upgrades in the lineup to be champions.



> The point is that just because a deal for a marquis player is possible doesn't make it the right thing to do. Everything depends on the deal on the table. The impression I get from you is that you believe because you assume Pax will not get a top-flight player via trade this year, you also believe Pax sucks. And vice versa.


I think Pax is pretty good at drafting players, but horrible at making trades. I also think his people skills, dealing with the players as human beings, is pretty awful.

I also think I've seen pax work enough that I don't have any expectations that he's going to make a move of any real consequence (DC got me thinking he might do a sideways kind of move). Which is the answer to the question in this thread, and ultimately the answer to Cey's questions, too.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I look at PJ Brown and just shake my head. He's the latest in a stream of deals that brought us players that are mostly useless. More names that immediatly come to mind: JYD, Othella, Songaila, Pitakowski, etc., etc.
> 
> The results of the Curry trade are in. We lost.



How can you believe that? TT is a rookie and we still have an unknown player coming in this year's draft, assuming the Bulls and Knicks swap picks.


You said Pax got the smelley end of _every_ trade, which I don't believe. For instance, he basically got Khryapa for free this year? He may not be MJ, but I don't see how he didn't "win" that trade.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> How can you believe that? TT is a rookie and we still have an unknown player coming in this year's draft, assuming the Bulls and Knicks swap picks.
> 
> 
> You said Pax got the smelley end of _every_ trade, which I don't believe. For instance, he basically got Khryapa for free this year? He may not be MJ, but I don't see how he didn't "win" that trade.


How did we get Khryapa for free? We gave up a second round pick and moving down from the #2 pick to #4 to get him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> How can you believe that? TT is a rookie and we still have an unknown player coming in this year's draft, assuming the Bulls and Knicks swap picks.
> 
> 
> You said Pax got the smelley end of _every_ trade, which I don't believe. For instance, he basically got Khryapa for free this year? He may not be MJ, but I don't see how he didn't "win" that trade.


TT is averaging 3.9 PPG and 2.8 RPG.
Khryapa is averaging 1.8 PPG and 1.6 RPG

Curry is averaging 17.8 PPG and 7.1 RPG

No comparison. Sorry.

The deal was Kryhapa and TT for Aldridge (and the 2nd round pick, pointed out by DC).


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Good evening Gentlemen




jnrjr79 said:


> How can you believe that? ...



Unfortunately I believe in that too (like many other fans)…with all my respect to you 
, unless we will get a nasty PF/C gladiator thru the draft.

I did not see Pax was massaging the trading objects prior to making deal…so he can get a maximum possible value. On contrary he and Skiles were acting like a bureaucratic Federal Agency, who are following the directive orders or JR’s strike off letter. Not a good sign for a good trader.

Then that stupid Tyson and PJ trade…whyyyyyyyyyyyy ?! Bulls could sale Tyson any time for that price! What was wrong to see, how Tyson will play around BW? IMO, that trade was definitely not beneficial to Bulls.

I agree with DaBullz…I hope Pax will do nothing if he is not prepared to figure out whom to keep, Ben or Kirk.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I look at PJ Brown and just shake my head. He's the latest in a stream of deals that brought us players that are mostly useless. More names that immediatly come to mind: JYD, Othella, Songaila, Pitakowski, etc., etc.
> 
> The results of the Curry trade are in. We lost.


No offense but you might try asserting these opinions in public sometime, the uncontrollable laughter you're met with might lead you to rethink your position. Curry has perhaps the only sizeable uninsured contract in the league. Despite his post efficiency I doubt there is one GM in the league who would trade for him. Thomas is arguably the most promising rookie in his draft class and is still 20 years old. The pick swap from NY hasn't even been used yet. If the Bulls were somehow to land Oden, the best draft prospect since LeBron, that would be irrelevant because the results are in and Pax lost?!

Songolia was a bargain basement free agent who put up solid numbers as a backup. Was there some All-Star Pax should've signed for the $2 or $3 million Songolia earned? Harrington is another inexpensive free agent who played solid backup minutes. The Bulls had quite a bit of success after trading Rose for JYD and Davis. The Raptors spent the next couple years scrambling to deal Jalen's contract and then traded him to the Knicks who bought him out. Should Pax have kept Jalen's contracts on the book so the team lacked the cap room to sign Wallace this offseason? Sounds like a brilliant plan. Pax didn't quite get a king's ransom for Mutumbo but 38 year old centers who demand trades usually aren't particularly valuable and it's not as though Mutumbo has set the world on fire since.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I think Memphis has lost around 5 games since Gasol's been back...

I'm sure that trade demand will come very soon...

One thing I WILL say is, although we all got on his case about it, maybe Pax moved too soon signing Hinrich for 50 mill.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mr. Cey, do you think Pax would trade Hinrich to get Gasol or Garnett?

Would that be a worthwhile trade in your book?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Mr. Cey, do you think Pax would trade Hinrich to get Gasol or Garnett?
> 
> Would that be a worthwhile trade in your book?


I know u didn't ask me BUT,

With the way that Gordon contributes at the PG position, I'd do it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> No offense but you might try asserting these opinions in public sometime, the uncontrollable laughter you're met with might lead you to rethink your position. Curry has perhaps the only sizeable uninsured contract in the league. Despite his post efficiency I doubt there is one GM in the league who would trade for him. Thomas is arguably the most promising rookie in his draft class and is still 20 years old. The pick swap from NY hasn't even been used yet. If the Bulls were somehow to land Oden, the best draft prospect since LeBron, that would be irrelevant because the results are in and Pax lost?!
> 
> Songolia was a bargain basement free agent who put up solid numbers as a backup. Was there some All-Star Pax should've signed for the $2 or $3 million Songolia earned? Harrington is another inexpensive free agent who played solid backup minutes. The Bulls had quite a bit of success after trading Rose for JYD and Davis. The Raptors spent the next couple years scrambling to deal Jalen's contract and then traded him to the Knicks who bought him out. Should Pax have kept Jalen's contracts on the book so the team lacked the cap room to sign Wallace this offseason? Sounds like a brilliant plan. Pax didn't quite get a king's ransom for Mutumbo but 38 year old centers who demand trades usually aren't particularly valuable and it's not as though Mutumbo has set the world on fire since.


No offense, but I'm kinda laughing at your post.

Thomas isn't the most promising rookie in the draft. Roy clearly is the most promising, and Aldridge is looking like a great pick, too.

Should the bulls have kept Jalen's contract? Maybe, maybe not, but *they should have gotten some quality player(s) back for him* so we didn't have to watch a bunch of NBDL guys for a whole season.

The Curry deal happened as-is because Pax mismanaged the whole situation and had to find a trading partner who had big contracts to absorb the BYC kind of contract. You can't say what other teams would have offered in a pure FA situation or if he wasn't BYC.

(the bolded part is why we got the smelly end of the stick)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Trade for K.G.

2 of the 3 (Ny pick, Tyrus or Deng) + P.J.'s contract. That's IT!

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Gordon / Sefolosha
F Nocioni / Khyrapa
F Garnett
C Wallace

= NBA FINALS


----------



## Jonathan (Feb 24, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Trade for K.G.
> 
> 2 of the 3 (Ny pick, Tyrus or Deng) + P.J.'s contract. That's IT!
> 
> ...


While you're at it, you should trade Duhon straight up for Kobe, too.

IF Minnesota ever decides to trade Garnett (and I don't know why they would; he's not their problem and they're not doing that badly this year), they're going to want:

PJ's contract, plus Deng, plus Tyrus, plus the pick, PLUS another one of our core group. You need all that for the salaries to work, anyway.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> TT is averaging 3.9 PPG and 2.8 RPG.
> Khryapa is averaging 1.8 PPG and 1.6 RPG
> 
> Curry is averaging 17.8 PPG and 7.1 RPG
> ...


Ok. So your position is that Khyrapa and TT for Aldrige and a 2nd rounder constituted Pax gettting the smelly end of the stick? Fair enough.


How does Curry fit into the analysis in this specific post? I suppose the equation is now this:

Curry vs. Sweets + filler + TT + Khyrapa + 2007 1st rounder - 2nd round pick given up in Portland trade

You think the jury has come in with a verdict on that deal? No way.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I know u didn't ask me BUT,
> 
> With the way that Gordon contributes at the PG position, I'd do it.


Me too. I think a very fair deal for Gasol could be worked out that way. 

Kirk, PJ, Sweetney, Noc for Gasol and Miller would leave us with a lot to work with:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ok. So your position is that Khyrapa and TT for Aldrige and a 2nd rounder constituted Pax gettting the smelly end of the stick? Fair enough.
> 
> 
> How does Curry fit into the analysis in this specific post? I suppose the equation is now this:
> ...


Dude, you can't pretend the guys we got are going to magically be better in 5 years or something.

RIGHT NOW. When we're trying to win the championship with an aging Wallace.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Me too. I think a very fair deal for Gasol could be worked out that way.
> 
> Kirk, PJ, Sweetney, Noc for Gasol and Miller would leave us with a lot to work with:


The deal is great. The problem is that I don't think Hill and Laettner are going to gain ownership. The current owner has sounded adamant about not wanting to trade Gasol. And the Grizzlies have continued to lose with Gasol in the lineup. Right now, there is no danger of him leading Memphis to meaningless wins and reducing lottery chances. Unless he demands a trade, we would probably have to overpay for him.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Dude, you can't pretend the guys we got are going to magically be better in 5 years or something.


Yeah, 'cause we all know rookies and young guys never improve. Err...

Deng and Gordon have continually bettered their games to sub-All Star levels. Thomas and Sefolosha will surely improve; the only question is by how much. Hinrich just got back from an invite to Team USA and continually gets praised by opposition.

My bad, though, I didn't realize that all rookies and young guys come in and play at the peak level of their careers in the first 25 games of their first season.



DaBullz said:


> RIGHT NOW. When we're trying to win the championship with an aging Wallace.


Firstly, please take a step back for a second and realize what you just wrote. The Bulls are realistically setting their sights on a championship. Remember how impossible that would have sounded only a few years ago. But this is the situation you think is so terrible?

Anyway, I think you're only half-right. We're an outside shot at winning the big one in the short-term, but Pax still has a bunch of long-term assets in the bank. So in a sense he can have his cake an eat it too. It's not like Pax emptied the cupboards on a wild gamble.

It must be a dark, bleak Bulls world you live in if you don't give any value to assets like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, maybe Thomas, maybe Sefolosha, and the NY pick. And yet you still pine for the days before Pax when we were perennial cellar-dwellars. I don't get it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> Yeah, 'cause we all know rookies and young guys never improve. Err...
> 
> Deng and Gordon have continually bettered their games to sub-All Star levels. Thomas and Sefolosha will surely improve; the only question is by how much. Hinrich just got back from an invite to Team USA and continually gets praised by opposition.
> 
> My bad, though, I didn't realize that all rookies and young guys come in and play at the peak level of their careers in the first 25 games of their first season.


Gordon did. I expect it of a top 3 kind of pick. Particularly a #2 pick.

p - p - p - p - potential. I've been sold that bill of goods at least one time too many.



> Firstly, please take a step back for a second and realize what you just wrote. The Bulls are realistically setting their sights on a championship. Remember how impossible that would have sounded only a few years ago. But this is the situation you think is so terrible?


Are they? They lose on the road, and win at home against easy teams. FWIW, the team I really worry about in the East this year is Washington. Damn, they are looking REALLY tough right now.



> Anyway, I think you're only half-right. We're an outside shot at winning the big one in the short-term, but Pax still has a bunch of long-term assets in the bank. So in a sense he can have his cake an eat it too. It's not like Pax emptied the cupboards on a wild gamble.


To have a shot at winning in any term, I figure the team needs to win close to 60 games, even more. I'm not seeing it out of this team. So you either stand pat, or you do _something_ that's a real attempt to get us to that point. Our real attempt was trading Chandler for PJ Brown and adding guys like Krappa and Griffin. I'm just not impressed by that kind of player.



> It must be a dark, bleak Bulls world you live in if you don't give any value to assets like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, maybe Thomas, maybe Sefolosha, and the NY pick. And yet you still pine for the days before Pax when we were perennial cellar-dwellars. I don't get it.


Yeah, yeah. I've been a bulls fan for probably longer than you've been alive. On top of that, I've been a cubs fan, so I'm used to the "wait until next year" mentality that permeates Chicago sports. But I also remember the championship bulls - they had TWO top 50 of all time players, let alone best in the league of their time. We're not even close to that.

So sue me for telling it like it is, instead of putting on the rose colored glasses and drinking the kool-aid.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The results of the Curry trade are in. We lost.


This is a truly amazing statement. Tyrus Thomas is approaching his 30th pro game, and the NY 2007 draft pick *hasn't even been selected yet*. But no, gents, the results are already in, and we've lost. Gosh darn it.

The word "premature" doesn't even begin to do justice to this assertation.



DaBullz said:


> Should the bulls have kept Jalen's contract? Maybe, maybe not, but they should have gotten some quality player(s) back for him so we didn't have to watch a bunch of NBDL guys for a whole season.


Actually, Pax was way ahead of the curve with regards to Jalen Rose. He saw how ultimately detrimental it would be to try to keep building with him as a focal piece and got rid of his albatross contract ASAP for a sack of used hockey pucks. Thank goodness there was another GM who Pax was able to unload him on.

Complaining about how players like the Junkyard Puppy sucked misses the point entirely, and playing the "Pax coulda gotten better offers!" conjecture just serves to give you an unfalsifible position from which to take potshots at Pax without actually committing to anything.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> This is a truly amazing statement. Tyrus Thomas is approaching his 30th pro game, and the NY 2007 draft pick *hasn't even been selected yet*. But no, gents, the results are already in, and we've lost. Gosh darn it.


Apparently, 24 year old pure centers who can score 20 points a game grow on trees.



> The word "premature" doesn't even begin to do justice to this assertation.


When is it not premature? How many years do you have to wait to see? Next year, when the trade still looks like we got the bad end of the stick, what will be the excuse then?



> Actually, Pax was way ahead of the curve with regards to Jalen Rose. He saw how ultimately detrimental it would be to try to keep building with him as a focal piece and got rid of his albatross contract ASAP for a sack of used hockey pucks. Thank goodness there was another GM who Pax was able to unload him on.
> 
> Complaining about how players like the Junkyard Puppy sucked misses the point entirely, and playing the "Pax coulda gotten better offers!" conjecture just serves to give you an unfalsifible position from which to take potshots at Pax without actually committing to anything.


Your last two paragraphs are pure conjecture, too. Show me why it isn't? The record shows that trading Rose led to a 7 game worse record immediately, which may have set the franchise back a few seasons at least.

The record also shows they went from 21 wins to 30 wins with Rose, so you can only make conjecture that the team wouldn't have continued to raise its record. All you have is a slow start, not unlike this year's team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)




----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> No offense, but I'm kinda laughing at your post.
> 
> Thomas isn't the most promising rookie in the draft. Roy clearly is the most promising, and Aldridge is looking like a great pick, too.


Is there a basis for this statement? Rookie seasons and less than the first half of a rookie season in particular are notoriously flaky. Regardless, Roy has played all of 7 games and 201 minutes. Should I then assume your asessment is based entirely on pre-draft potential and scouting reports? If that's the case it seems strange that four GMs passed on the most promising player in the draft? That would seem bizarre when talent is generally selected over fit in the lottery. There's certainly a case to be made that Aldridge has more potential than Tyrus (that's why I included the word "arguably" which you conveniently ignored). However, since Tyrus is a full year younger and is averaging more points, blocks, and rebounds per minute it's not an extremely compelling arugument.



DaBullz said:


> Should the bulls have kept Jalen's contract? Maybe, maybe not, but *they should have gotten some quality player(s) back for him* so we didn't have to watch a bunch of NBDL guys for a whole season.


Uh...if you have some knowledge of a better deal that Pax left on the table now would be a good time to mention it. As it stands he did an incredible job of clearing cap space by dealing a player few teams had interest in. It's easy to say we should've traded Jalen for Tim Duncan but GMs have to accept what other teams are willing to deal or refuse to deal at all.




DaBullz said:


> The Curry deal happened as-is because Pax mismanaged the whole situation and had to find a trading partner who had big contracts to absorb the BYC kind of contract. You can't say what other teams would have offered in a pure FA situation or if he wasn't BYC.
> 
> (the bolded part is why we got the smelly end of the stick)


I'm not entirely following you here. Are you saying that Pax should've traded Curry earlier in a deal that was not a sign and trade (I'm surprised that Curry was BYC after resigning him since it doesn't seem that TT made tons more)? If so I'd be interested to know at what point he should have perceived the heart problem and shopped Eddy. As far as I remember the team only became aware of the problem after the trade deadline. Furthermore, I have to ask yet again why you have reason to believe there would've been a better deal out there. Curry's value was pretty minimal as a one year rental and again virtually no GM other than Isiah was willing to resign Eddy to a large uninsured contract. It's just not a good business move.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> p - p - p - p - potential. I've been sold that bill of goods at least one time too many.


This Bulls team is completely different, though. They aren't just grasping at the straws of potential, they're getting actual results. They're _winning._ Just last week an expert on ESPN called the Bulls the favorites in the east. It's not like previous times when the year would end and all you had to go on was, "Well, the team sucked badly, better pray for a great pick and a home run in the draft."

They've also built up a positive team image. Insert cries about Skiles vs. superstars and headbands all you want, but players _want_ to play for the Bulls now. Iverson talked about the Bulls, KG talked about the Bulls, and the team landed a huge fish last offseason. This is because they're viewed as a team that's climbing the ladder.



DaBullz said:


> Are they [contenders]? ...I'm not seeing it out of this team. So you either stand pat, or you do _something_ that's a real attempt to get us to that point.


Well, I personally wouldn't place the chances of a Bulls championship this year at any greater than 5%. Others might disagree. However, that they're in the running at all is a giant step forward. Rome wasn't built in a day, and although it's not clear if we'll ever construct it at all, there is just no theoretical way to go from that crappy 30-win team to championship in the 3 years Pax has been around. All we can say is that he appears to be on a pretty decent path.

Consider this, though. By all accounts, if Pax wanted to gamble and go all guns blazing for a championship in the near future, all he has to do is call up the T'Wolves and fork over the sizable goods to get KG. I think we can all agree that would be an interesting scenario with plenty of star power and still a halfway-decent bench.

That Pax _hasn't_ done that and is taking a wait-and-see approach means he apparently thinks his chances are _even better_ if he plays it cool for a while. And that is a very, very nice thing to ponder.



DaBullz said:


> When is it not premature [to call the Curry trade a failure]? How many years do you have to wait to see?


Some players don't exactly tear it up right away. There's Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Ben Wallace... I would guess that you can usually get a decent picture of what a player might be within 2-3 pro years.

Believe me, I probably have as many doubts about Tyrus Thomas as you do; so far he kinda reminds me of a shorter Tyson Chandler in that all I ever see him do is rebound and make putbacks with the occasional alley-oop. Not that that's necessarily all that bad, mind you, but I'm willing to give him a lot more time before I write him off as merely a mediocre roleplayer. And the NY pick, whoever it ends up playing, has played zero pro games. _Zero._ There is absolutely nothing to go on yet.

~~~~~~~

The rest of the tangents can go in their respective Curry/Chandler/Jalen Rose update threads.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> Believe me, I probably have as many doubts about Tyrus Thomas as you do; so far he kinda reminds me of a shorter Tyson Chandler in that all I ever see him do is rebound and make putbacks with the occasional alley-oop.


I love Tyson and will defend him until the end but I don't ever remember him attempting 13 free throws in 19 minutes as Tyrus did the other night.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Is there a basis for this statement? Rookie seasons and less than the first half of a rookie season in particular are notoriously flaky. Regardless, Roy has played all of 7 games and 201 minutes. Should I then assume your asessment is based entirely on pre-draft potential and scouting reports?


I'll chime in here. Look, you can see from my avatar that I love Roy's game. Despite playing one of his worst NBA games tonight, I think he has absolutely lived up to his billing as being really NBA ready. Injuries are the only thing that scare me about him going forward. His heel injury that kept him out a month was not known about before the season; it was his surgically repaired knee that was the red flag.

Nevertheless, if you watch Portland games, and you watch Roy play, it's pretty easy to see how well his game has translated. It's easy to see how much Nate trusts him on the court. That's why he's starting and he's playing nearly 29 minutes per game instead of the previously annointed "future," Martell Webster. Roy is just a ridiculously smart player with exceptionally rare all-around game, including defense. Notice that McMillan had Roy guard TJ Ford on the last play of a tie game in regulation a few days back.

I said before the draft that I would have traded Gordon straight up for a pick that netted us Brandon Roy, and I stand by that. And I'm not one of those "trade Gordon at all cost" guys on this board. I actually tend to think Ben is very valuable to the Bulls despite his flaws. But that's how good I think Brandon Roy will be (and already is).

Portland had a heck of a draft this year. 

As for what Paxson is going to do, I don't expect much. I'd like to see him push hard for Gasol, KG, or Jermaine O'Neal. Put any of those guys next to Wallace, and I think you see impressive offensive/defensive production out of our 4/5 spot. I think we'd be a formidable presence in the East for several years.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

*A more balanced view!*

Hmmmm..... 

Seems like we have had some spirited discussions in this thread. 

I just want to point out that there are several ways to view the present team. Here is my view.

The team has a lot of potential and may win big this year. However, they will have to continue to improve. The T-Wolves game the other night made them look sick. The Bulls should have come in playing a motivated game, but looked lost. This team MUST bring its A game if it is going to win, which is what Skiles trys to get them to do.

The Bulls do have a major, major weakness, created in part by some of the trades made over the last two years. They do not have a good, tall inside scorer. Getting one is what is needed. However, that is tough to do, without giving away the store. I would like to see Pax get Garnet. I think Garnet is exactly what the team needs to get to the championship this year. However, I am not sure the T Wolves are willing to trade him and if they are, if we should pay their asking price.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: A more balanced view!*



Fergus said:


> The Bulls do have a major, major weakness, created in part by some of the trades made over the last two years. They do not have a good, tall inside scorer. Getting one is what is needed. However, that is tough to do, without giving away the store. I would like to see Pax get Garnet. I think Garnet is exactly what the team needs to get to the championship this year. However, I am not sure the T Wolves are willing to trade him and if they are, if we should pay their asking price.


That last bit is key. McHale would have to admit he's been wrong about a lot of things before he trades Garnett, and how willing is he to do that? Garnett's probably going to be a Timberwolve until he can opt out of his contract, or he makes a big enough stink to be traded.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Dude, you can't pretend the guys we got are going to magically be better in 5 years or something.
> 
> RIGHT NOW. When we're trying to win the championship with an aging Wallace.



First, it's silly to suggest it's *magic* that makes playeres get better with time. You expect no improvement from TT? Ok.

I understand we're trying to win now with Wallace, but Curry was shipped out well before he was in the picture.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> Well, I personally wouldn't place the chances of a Bulls championship this year at any greater than 5%. Others might disagree.


I don't.



> All we can say is that he appears to be on a pretty decent path.


I'd say "appeared". Then he got back on his old man fetish, to the extent that, by the time our young players are really good in a few years, the old ones won't be worth **** anymore.



> Consider this, though. By all accounts, if Pax wanted to gamble and go all guns blazing for a championship in the near future, all he has to do is call up the T'Wolves and fork over the sizable goods to get KG. I think we can all agree that would be an interesting scenario with plenty of star power and still a halfway-decent bench.
> 
> That Pax _hasn't_ done that and is taking a wait-and-see approach means he apparently thinks his chances are _even better_ if he plays it cool for a while. And that is a very, very nice thing to ponder.


It'd be more likely to succeed, in my opinion, if he picked a strategy (now or later) and stuck to it. Teams that try to have their cake and eat it too usually get neither.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Uh...if you have some knowledge of a better deal that Pax left on the table now would be a good time to mention it. As it stands he did an incredible job of clearing cap space by dealing a player few teams had interest in. It's easy to say we should've traded Jalen for Tim Duncan but GMs have to accept what other teams are willing to deal or refuse to deal at all.


Yell + #7 (Hinrich) for #4 (Wade)



> I'm not entirely following you here. Are you saying that Pax should've traded Curry earlier in a deal that was not a sign and trade (I'm surprised that Curry was BYC after resigning him since it doesn't seem that TT made tons more)? If so I'd be interested to know at what point he should have perceived the heart problem and shopped Eddy. As far as I remember the team only became aware of the problem after the trade deadline. Furthermore, I have to ask yet again why you have reason to believe there would've been a better deal out there. Curry's value was pretty minimal as a one year rental and again virtually no GM other than Isiah was willing to resign Eddy to a large uninsured contract. It's just not a good business move.


he shouldn't have traded Curry at all.

The deal was more complicated than just Tim Thomas for Curry (what a great guy TT was for Pax to trade for). Motumbo and AD were in the deal, too. To make the salaries work out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> First, it's silly to suggest it's *magic* that makes playeres get better with time. You expect no improvement from TT? Ok.
> 
> I understand we're trying to win now with Wallace, but Curry was shipped out well before he was in the picture.


I don't think signing Curry at $9M/season would have precluded us signing Wallace. The team still had the expiring contracts of ERob and AD and maybe Pippen, too.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

I would like to see a move made that favours our team.Weather its a big move or a little move it really wouldn't matter to me as long as its an improvement.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'll chime in here. Look, you can see from my avatar that I love Roy's game. Despite playing one of his worst NBA games tonight, I think he has absolutely lived up to his billing as being really NBA ready. Injuries are the only thing that scare me about him going forward. His heel injury that kept him out a month was not known about before the season; it was his surgically repaired knee that was the red flag.
> 
> Nevertheless, if you watch Portland games, and you watch Roy play, it's pretty easy to see how well his game has translated. It's easy to see how much Nate trusts him on the court. That's why he's starting and he's playing nearly 29 minutes per game instead of the previously annointed "future," Martell Webster. Roy is just a ridiculously smart player with exceptionally rare all-around game, including defense. Notice that McMillan had Roy guard TJ Ford on the last play of a tie game in regulation a few days back.
> 
> ...


All good points. I didn't mean to belittle Roy by any means, I think he'll be a good NBA player. You can certainly also make an argument that he has as much potential than any player in this draft class. I just think it's tough to argue that he was a slam dunk over Tyrus for the Bulls and that Pax erred in the draft.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> All good points. I didn't mean to belittle Roy by any means, I think he'll be a good NBA player. You can certainly also make an argument that he has as much potential than any player in this draft class. I just think it's tough to argue that he was a slam dunk over Tyrus for the Bulls and that Pax erred in the draft.


Roy was more certain to help any team his first year.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Yell + #7 (Hinrich) for #4 (Wade)


Link? I've never seen any so much as semi-substantiated evidence that such an offer definitely existed and that it was the Bulls and not the Heat who pulled out.



DaBullz said:


> he shouldn't have traded Curry at all.
> 
> The deal was more complicated than just Tim Thomas for Curry (what a great guy TT was for Pax to trade for). Motumbo and AD were in the deal, too. To make the salaries work out.


The Knicks were the only ones who would take Curry in a sign and trade and Thomas had to be included to make the deal work under the cap. If you're arguing that the Bulls were better off keeping Curry then we're back to the fact that Isiah is the only GM in the league crazy enough to take on that uninsured contract and your dubious claim that "the results are in" and Tyrus is a failure while the '07 pick swap is somehow irrelevant.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Roy was more certain to help any team his first year.


But than relies on an unsupported assumption that the sole goal of this team is to win this season. It also relies on the assumption that Roy would take some of Duhon's minutes or that he would be a difference maker in Thabo's 12 MPG.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> All good points. I didn't mean to belittle Roy by any means, I think he'll be a good NBA player. You can certainly also make an argument that he has as much potential than any player in this draft class. I just think it's tough to argue that he was a slam dunk over Tyrus for the Bulls and that Pax erred in the draft.


Nah, it's too early, I agree. I preferred both Roy and Aldridge to the Thomas pick, but I like some of what I have seen from Thomas so far. I was concerned about him mentally, and he's shown no signs of instability thus far as an NBA player. I'm sure he's working hard, and expect he will be more of a contributor in years to come.

But in general, I'm not in support of the raw athlete draft pick. People talk about Thomas's shooting, Thomas's ball handling ability, etc, but really none of those skills are NBA ready. And he can't shoot free throws either. Yup, he's a long-term prospect. Let's hope Pax gambled right.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Link? I've never seen any so much as semi-substantiated evidence that such an offer definitely existed and that it was the Bulls and not the Heat who pulled out.


Semi-substantiated:

http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=757

*Rosedale, Maryland: *As a fan of the Chicago Bulls, I hope that Mr. Paxson does not blow a chance to improve the team as he did when he had the opportunity to draft Dwayne Wade by passing on a trade which would only have cost the team Donyell Marshall. Do you think Brandon Roy would be a better choice at the #2 pick for the Bulls and look for a big rebounder/scorer later in the draft or through free agency? *

Roscoe Nance: *When in doubt, go for size. I'd go big with the No. 2 pick and look for a guard with the later pick. Size is always hard to come by.



> The Knicks were the only ones who would take Curry in a sign and trade and Thomas had to be included to make the deal work under the cap. If you're arguing that the Bulls were better off keeping Curry then we're back to the fact that Isiah is the only GM in the league crazy enough to take on that uninsured contract and your dubious claim that "the results are in" and Tyrus is a failure while the '07 pick swap is somehow irrelevant.


How do you know the Knicks were the only ones who'd take Curry?

Thomas is averaging 3.7 PPG and 2.7 RPG. Those are the results. In some fantasy land, he's averaging 20/10 and making 3 pt shots (or outside shots of any kind, actually) and contributing to our latest championship.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> But than relies on an unsupported assumption that the sole goal of this team is to win this season. It also relies on the assumption that Roy would take some of Duhon's minutes or that he would be a difference maker in Thabo's 12 MPG.


The goal of EVERY team should be to win this year.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm a big fan of Roy's game now...

But we have Thabo, who's gonna be excellent and an improved Ben Gordon...

I'd personally rather have those two....

Thomas's overall game will be much better than Aldridge's IMO...we've already seen a good portion of what he can do and what he'll be ABLE to do...Tyrus has far more potential in my eyes...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The goal of EVERY team should be to win this year.


I disagree.

Some teams know they have to sacrifice present-day success for future success. Was Kobe a "win now" pick? Was KG? Was T-Mac? It's entirely common to pick a player that you think will ultimately be the best rather than a player who will offer the highest contribution in his first year. I know you know this well. Are you arguing that the #1 player picked every year should be the player that will perform the best in the subsequent season? I doubt you'll get many GMs on board with you. And if anything, Pax has traditionally erred on that side of things.

Thomas sucks now, therefore he will suck forever. Sorry, but that's untrue.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> But in general, I'm not in support of the raw athlete draft pick. People talk about Thomas's shooting, Thomas's ball handling ability, etc, but really none of those skills are NBA ready. And he can't shoot free throws either. Yup, he's a long-term prospect. Let's hope Pax gambled right.


Yeah. I agree to that to some extent. You're right that Tyrus' offensive skills aren't NBA ready. I do think his rawness is overstated sometimes though. He was considered one of the better players in D1 basketball last season which ussually isn't the case with players considered to be projects. His rebounding and shot blocking are already above average NBA skills from the looks of it. I also feel like he has a solid offensive IQ. Compared to someone like Tyson he seems to be in the right place at the right time more often, he shoots when he gets the ball near the basket, and someone (Skiles?) praised him for setting several good screens the other night.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Semi-substantiated:
> 
> http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=757
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I'd call a statement from a fan, a semi-substantiated rumor. Also I didn't realize that "Yell" was Marshall. Why did you post that draft suggestion in response to my explanation why the Rose deal was a good move? Are you still arguing that Pax has lost every single deal he's made and that acquiring JYD and Davis for Rose is an example of this?



DaBullz said:


> How do you know the Knicks were the only ones who'd take Curry?


Because I've never read about the Bulls negitiation with any other team for the sign and trade and the uninsured contract is considered virtually or completely impossible to trade. Maybe another team would have offered to deal for a sign and trade with a much smaller contract. But if that was the case obviously Eddy wouldn't have agreed to the contract so the Bulls hands were equally tied. 



DaBullz said:


> Thomas is averaging 3.7 PPG and 2.7 RPG. Those are the results. In some fantasy land, he's averaging 20/10 and making 3 pt shots (or outside shots of any kind, actually) and contributing to our latest championship.


In 10 MPG. Per minute they're better stats than Aldridge - one of the players you've deemed better than Tyrus - is putting up. Tyrus is in the unusual position of being on a rookie on a contending team which means he doesn't receive development minutes and there are solid players ahead of him. I don't think that makes him a poor draft pick. Furthermore, if you insist I'll spit out a list of a few dozen players who went on to have great careers after mediocre to poor rookie seasons. Is your stance that you wait until a third of the way through the season, rank the rookies in order of who has put up the best numbers, and that then reflects who will have the best NBA career? The superstars of this draft class will be Paul Millsap and Craig Smith?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The goal of EVERY team should be to win this year.


So every year we should trade next season's first rounder for another teams 10th man since it will improve our chances of winning this season? Brilliant. You should call up Portland and tell them to trade Aldridge and Roy for Ricky Davis.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Semi-substantiated:
> 
> http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=757
> 
> ...


DaBullz, how is this some substantiation? This is just some comment by some other fan. However, I do feel like I've seen semi-substantiation before in other sources that I doubt I could find.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Some teams know they have to sacrifice present-day success for future success. Was Kobe a "win now" pick? Was KG? Was T-Mac? It's entirely common to pick a player that you think will ultimately be the best rather than a player who will offer the highest contribution in his first year. I know you know this well. Are you arguing that the #1 player picked every year should be the player that will perform the best in the subsequent season? I doubt you'll get many GMs on board with you. And if anything, Pax has traditionally erred on that side of things.
> 
> Thomas sucks now, therefore he will suck forever. Sorry, but that's untrue.


Kobe was #13th pick. Get real 

Do I need to expand on that?

Here's a list of #1 draft picks:
Ming, Brown, Martin, Brand, Kandiman, Duncan, Iverson, Smith, Robinson, Webber, Shaq, Grandmama, Coleman, Ellison, Manning, Robinson, Dugherty, Ewing, Hakeem, Sampson, Worthy, Aguirre, Barry Carroll, Magic, Mychal Thompson, etc.

EVERY single pick, aside from Kwame, was expcted (and did) contribute pretty much right away. Kwame is considered a bust, no? 

So much for the GM's being on board with me 

Here's a list of #2 draft picks:
Williams, Okafor, Milicik, JWill, Chandler, Swift, Francis, Bibby, Van Horn, Camby, McDyess, Kidd, Bradley, Mourning, Anderson, Payton, Ferry, Smits, Gilliam, Bias, Tisdale, etc.

Who're the "project" picks? Milicik (bust in Detroit) and Bradley (bust, period).

I'm not suggesting that a #1 pick or #2 pick (or #4 pick or #7 pick even) is guaranteed to contribute, but rather the pick should be used on a guy who theoretically (on paper, pre-draft projections, etc.) SHOULD.

Just for yuks, here's ERob's rookie stats:
7 PPG, 2.7 RPG, .549 FG%, 16.6 Minutes


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> DaBullz, how is this some substantiation? This is just some comment by some other fan. However, I do feel like I've seen semi-substantiation before in other sources that I doubt I could find.


I didn't make it up if someone else in another part of the country heard the same thing.

Of course, your memory is correct - we discussed the potential trade before the draft a lot on these boards, including the posting of the typical news articles, and so on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure I'd call a statement from a fan, a semi-substantiated rumor. Also I didn't realize that "Yell" was Marshall. Why did you post that draft suggestion in response to my explanation why the Rose deal was a good move? Are you still arguing that Pax has lost every single deal he's made and that acquiring JYD and Davis for Rose is an example of this?


Yell was dealt with Rose. It made the Rose trade even worse from the "what we gave up" vs. "what we got back" perspective.

Just because you hate a player doesn't make him a bad player. 23/5/5 is what he put up for us. 21->30 wins is what he helped us do. Rose and Wade is what we could have had, given what appears to have been on the table. Rose's contract was always suitable to facilitate a trade for a similar sized contract player. 

You mean we could have had a 23/5/5 player AND Wade? Instead we got Hinrich and AD and JYD.



> Because I've never read about the Bulls negitiation with any other team for the sign and trade and the uninsured contract is considered virtually or completely impossible to trade. Maybe another team would have offered to deal for a sign and trade with a much smaller contract. But if that was the case obviously Eddy wouldn't have agreed to the contract so the Bulls hands were equally tied.


D'oh. It was Paxson's manuevering that put him in the spot where he could get so little (and unwanted players) in return. Let's give credit where credit is due.



> In 10 MPG. Per minute they're better stats than Aldridge - one of the players you've deemed better than Tyrus - is putting up. Tyrus is in the unusual position of being on a rookie on a contending team which means he doesn't receive development minutes and there are solid players ahead of him. I don't think that makes him a poor draft pick. Furthermore, if you insist I'll spit out a list of a few dozen players who went on to have great careers after mediocre to poor rookie seasons. Is your stance that you wait until a third of the way through the season, rank the rookies in order of who has put up the best numbers, and that then reflects who will have the best NBA career? The superstars of this draft class will be Paul Millsap and Craig Smith?


See my list of #2 draft picks. Which had mediocre first seasons?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Yell was dealt with Rose. It made the Rose trade even worse from the "what we gave up" vs. "what we got back" perspective.
> 
> Just because you hate a player doesn't make him a bad player. 23/5/5 is what he put up for us. 21->30 wins is what he helped us do. Rose and Wade is what we could have had, given what appears to have been on the table. Rose's contract was always suitable to facilitate a trade for a similar sized contract player.
> 
> You mean we could have had a 23/5/5 player AND Wade? Instead we got Hinrich and AD and JYD.


I never even said I disliked Rose. I said that Toronto seemingly regretted acquiring him and that the Knicks bought him out of his contract. The Raps refused to do the deal unless Marshall was included so Pax's hands were pretty much tied. Rose's play didn't seem to help the Raptors or the Bulls win games. His best season after the trade was 18.5/3.4/2.6 and he's currently averaging 3.9/.9/.4 so I have no clue where you're getting 23/5/5 from. 

The other options were hanging onto Rose as his value continued to plummet, taking an equally bad contract in return or buying him out. With either scenario his contract (or a similar one) is likely still on the books today and we don't have the cap space to sign Wallace. It's pretty easy to go back and say we should've just held onto Rose so we could have used Marshall to trade up for Wade but really you could make that for any team in the game. You could take all but a couple of players on anyone's roster and say they should've traded that player to trade up for Wade and it would've improved their team. The reality is that no one thought at the time of the draft that Wade would be one of the five best players in the league in two or three years time. 



DaBullz said:


> D'oh. It was Paxson's manuevering that put him in the spot where he could get so little (and unwanted players) in return. Let's give credit where credit is due.


I'm pretty sure I responded to this before and you never answered me. What's the affimative theory as far as what Pax should have done? The trade deadline had passed when the heart problem surfaced so any way you cut it he was trading a player who had been diagnosed with a heart problem.



DaBullz said:


> See my list of #2 draft picks. Which had mediocre first seasons?


Most of the last six or seven in my opinion. You seem to be making the mistake of equating playing time with success. If you want to make a good comparison to Tyrus it would have to be player drafted by a contending team who could only afford the player limited playing time. Furthermore, limiting to scope of the discussion to #2 picks is completely arbitrary. The difference between the #2 and the #3 pick most seasons is a matter of opinion or need. Also, the #2 pick would sometimes be the #7 pick in a different draft depending on the draft's strength. Finally you're discussing performances over the players entire rookie season after denigrating Tyrus for his performance in just 23 games.

Since you seem interested though, here are a few players who had uninspiring rookie campaigns and then went on to bigger and better things: Deron Williams, Devin Harris (an apt comparision because he was drafted by a contender), Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Baron Davis. Your analysis was probably pretty accurate ten years ago but these days players leave school much earlier and often require time to develop.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Kobe was #13th pick. Get real
> 
> Do I need to expand on that?
> 
> ...



Of course, none of this addresses my argument that the player you pick is the player you expect to be the best, rather than the player who will have the best season in his rookie year.

Also, you know what is common to teams with high lottery picks? In general, they suck, and the lotto picks get burn (and lots of it). The Bulls, however, are a good team with talented players that TT has to compete against for playing time. The situations are totally incongruous.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I didn't make it up if someone else in another part of the country heard the same thing.


How is that true? Don't get me wrong, this particular rumor has been discused extensively on this board. I have no idea whether it was originally based on substantial info or not. But the idea that geography makes it somehow substantiated is meritless.

We're discussing this trade on a message board with fans all over the world. They're all equally capable of hearing the same rumors.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I never even said I disliked Rose. I said that Toronto seemingly regretted acquiring him and that the Knicks bought him out of his contract. The Raps refused to do the deal unless Marshall was included so Pax's hands were pretty much tied. Rose's play didn't seem to help the Raptors or the Bulls win games. His best season after the trade was 18.5/3.4/2.6 and he's currently averaging 3.9/.9/.4 so I have no clue where you're getting 23/5/5 from.


23/5/5 is his only full season with the BULLS.

There's an emoticon for the sentiment that Pax's hands were tied: :boohoo:



> The other options were hanging onto Rose as his value continued to plummet, taking an equally bad contract in return or buying him out. With either scenario his contract (or a similar one) is likely still on the books today and we don't have the cap space to sign Wallace. It's pretty easy to go back and say we should've just held onto Rose so we could have used Marshall to trade up for Wade but really you could make that for any team in the game. You could take all but a couple of players on anyone's roster and say they should've traded that player to trade up for Wade and it would've improved their team. The reality is that no one thought at the time of the draft that Wade would be one of the five best players in the league in two or three years time.


Rose reported to training camp with his wrist in a cast. That's the _only_ thing that would make a 23/5/5 guy's value "plummet."

My position is that it'd have been better to wait a few months for his wrist to heal and then trade him after he shows he can still play at the same level. 18/3/3 in less minutes says he could still play at the same level.



> I'm pretty sure I responded to this before and you never answered me. What's the affimative theory as far as what Pax should have done? The trade deadline had passed when the heart problem surfaced so any way you cut it he was trading a player who had been diagnosed with a heart problem.


Sign him and trade him in a year when he's not BYC. Hands aren't tied at that point. :boohoo:



> Most of the last six or seven in my opinion. You seem to be making the mistake of equating playing time with success. If you want to make a good comparison to Tyrus it would have to be player drafted by a contending team who could only afford the player limited playing time. Furthermore, limiting to scope of the discussion to #2 picks is completely arbitrary. The difference between the #2 and the #3 pick most seasons is a matter of opinion or need. Also, the #2 pick would sometimes be the #7 pick in a different draft depending on the draft's strength. Finally you're discussing performances over the players entire rookie season after denigrating Tyrus for his performance in just 23 games.


Geez. Look at the list of #1 or #2 picks and tell me which ones were as poor as Thomas after 23 games.

it is my position that when you put a guy on the court like a Jordan or a Kobe or Wade or Chris Paul, you can tell right away the guy's a contributor. You have to struggle to NOT play the guy if you even want to try (like they did with Kobe).



> Since you seem interested though, here are a few players who had uninspiring rookie campaigns and then went on to bigger and better things: Deron Williams, Devin Harris (an apt comparision because he was drafted by a contender), Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Baron Davis. Your analysis was probably pretty accurate ten years ago but these days players leave school much earlier and often require time to develop.


Chandler was a #2 pick. As you get down in the draft, the likelihood of the pick panning out at all diminishes. Find me a #2 or #4 pick who was uninspiring and who went on to bigger and better things. Aside from Curry.

Maybe Thomas will be a good player in 5 years. he'll be 26 then.. Worth the investment of a #2 pick? No.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Of course, none of this addresses my argument that the player you pick is the player you expect to be the best, rather than the player who will have the best season in his rookie year.
> 
> Also, you know what is common to teams with high lottery picks? In general, they suck, and the lotto picks get burn (and lots of it). The Bulls, however, are a good team with talented players that TT has to compete against for playing time. The situations are totally incongruous.


The bulls are so thin at PF (Thomas' position) that they tried PJ Brown there and now are playing a 6'7" SF guy there.

If Thomas can't get burn, he's truly not that good (yet).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The bulls are so thin at PF (Thomas' position) that they tried PJ Brown there and now are playing a 6'7" SF guy there.
> 
> If Thomas can't get burn, he's truly not that good (yet).


Ok, so? I'm not arguing he's great now. I'm arguing that he has a good chance to develop into a star player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ok, so? I'm not arguing he's great now. I'm arguing that he has a good chance to develop into a star player.


So does Tyson Chandler. And he actually gave us meaningful minutes at a position we're weak.

So does Marty Andrews. 

There's simply no guarantees that a project will pan out. All you really can do is look at his performance, which is simply not that good.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> So does Tyson Chandler. And he actually gave us meaningful minutes at a position we're weak.
> 
> So does Marty Andrews.
> 
> There's simply no guarantees that a project will pan out. All you really can do is look at his performance, which is simply not that good.


Umm, Marty Andrews? Ok.

It's just not true that looking at "his performance," which I take it to mean his regular season performance with the Bulls this year, constitutes the only data that can be examined in evaluating TT's likelihood of success in the league. That's simply untrue. His college performance, summer league, camp, preseason, raw athletic ability, work ethic, demeanor, etc. all can and should be evaluated by the organization to determine whether TT will succeed. 

I'm sure you know this, too. I don't know why you're arguing otherwise. At the end of the day, I assume you believe you've seen enough to conclude that TT is unlikely to develop into an NBA star. I'd argue the jury is still out, but we can agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 23/5/5 is his only full season with the BULLS.
> 
> There's an emoticon for the sentiment that Pax's hands were tied: :boohoo:


So Jalen has actually been a borderline All-Star the past 3+ seasons, it's just that no one could tell because he wasn't playing for the Bulls? Huh?! We could suit him up today and he'd drop 23/5/5 for the rest of the season? Phoenix just doesn't know how to use him right (yeah, there's no history of players succeeding in that system)? Why am I or Pax boohooing? I think he made a good deal with Rose considering the hand he was dealt. 



DaBullz said:


> Rose reported to training camp with his wrist in a cast. That's the _only_ thing that would make a 23/5/5 guy's value "plummet."
> 
> My position is that it'd have been better to wait a few months for his wrist to heal and then trade him after he shows he can still play at the same level. 18/3/3 in less minutes says he could still play at the same level.


All of your arguments are so incredibly speculative. Wouldn't Pax have been shopping him during the offseason (before he was injured? I hardly remember this injury)? I don't recall fear that the injury would permanently affect his game so why would it substantially change his value with other GMs? If the injury was considered serious wouldn't Pax risk being unable to move the contract at all if he waited and Jalen didn't improve? Also, Jalen's stock already took a huge hit in '03 when he jacked up 19 shots a game and shot only 40% from the field. 



DaBullz said:


> Sign him and trade him in a year when he's not BYC. Hands aren't tied at that point. :boohoo:


How would that have been done?



DaBullz said:


> Geez. Look at the list of #1 or #2 picks and tell me which ones were as poor as Thomas after 23 games.


So you're just completely ignoring the arguments I presented for why precise draft position is totally arbitrary? Explain why a #3 or #4 is in no way comparable to Tyrus and I'll do it.



DaBullz said:


> it is my position that when you put a guy on the court like a Jordan or a Kobe or Wade or Chris Paul, you can tell right away the guy's a contributor. You have to struggle to NOT play the guy if you even want to try (like they did with Kobe).


If I was claiming that Tyrus would be as good as any of those four superstars you might be onto something. I never claimed Tyrus will one day be a superstar, you claimed he is a failed draft pick. 

Kobe is the only one who was on a contending team and I will refer you back to the list I posted.



DaBullz said:


> Chandler was a #2 pick. As you get down in the draft, the likelihood of the pick panning out at all diminishes. Find me a #2 or #4 pick who was uninspiring and who went on to bigger and better things. Aside from Curry.
> 
> Maybe Thomas will be a good player in 5 years. he'll be 26 then.. Worth the investment of a #2 pick? No.


What do you mean find a player? I just posted an entire list. Every one of those players was in the top 5. Why will it take Thomas five seasons to be successful? Most of the players I listed dramatically improved in their second season.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

How in the hell is he a failed draft pick? 20 some-odd games in the season? c'mon now

He wasn't supposed to be a major contributor this season anyway. There's nothing wrong with bringing him along slowly, it's help his development more than it'll hurt.

Let us not bring how many analysts and scouts said this kid was the most special player in the draft. But they also said that it would take him a FEW years in the league to be the player they THINK he'll become.

If he grows another inch & puts on atleast 10-15lbs by next season, the league will definintely have a problem on it's hands with him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Mr. Cey, do you think Pax would trade Hinrich to get Gasol or Garnett?
> 
> Would that be a worthwhile trade in your book?


I don't know what Paxson would include. I, personally, would definitely be willing to include Hinrich.

Yes, I think it would be worthwile depending on who else we have to include. But the concept of including Hinrich gives me no pause.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The bulls are so thin at PF (Thomas' position) that they tried PJ Brown there and now are playing a 6'7" SF guy there.
> 
> If Thomas can't get burn, he's truly not that good (yet).


It's not like any of the rookies that the board contemplated and were there at #2 are tearing it up.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> If he grows another inch & puts on atleast 10-15lbs by next season, the league will definintely have a problem on it's hands with him.


He'll be a lot better next year with an off season of weights behind him. Deng will also have another off season of weights 
too.

We need the size and length of
Kirk
Thabo
Deng
TT
to allow Wallace to excel at centre.
next year,
Noc, Gordon and our draft pick off the bench.

It's just a weight and experience issue with TT. I'm confident he'll put on the weight, wait and see on the experience angle, but we hear go things


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Umm, Marty Andrews? Ok.
> 
> It's just not true that looking at "his performance," which I take it to mean his regular season performance with the Bulls this year, constitutes the only data that can be examined in evaluating TT's likelihood of success in the league. That's simply untrue. His college performance, summer league, camp, preseason, raw athletic ability, work ethic, demeanor, etc. all can and should be evaluated by the organization to determine whether TT will succeed.
> 
> I'm sure you know this, too. I don't know why you're arguing otherwise. At the end of the day, I assume you believe you've seen enough to conclude that TT is unlikely to develop into an NBA star. I'd argue the jury is still out, but we can agree to disagree on that one.


Do you know who Jack "Goose" Givens is?

Read up about him and get back to me on the "how he played in college" indicates how he's going to be a great pro.

Gosh, I can name a whole slew of guys like that.

I keep bringing up ERob. Not only was ERob amazingly athletic, teams (and the bulls especially) went after him as a FA after his stock rose for a playoff performance (akin to TT's college games).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So Jalen has actually been a borderline All-Star the past 3+ seasons, it's just that no one could tell because he wasn't playing for the Bulls? Huh?! We could suit him up today and he'd drop 23/5/5 for the rest of the season? Phoenix just doesn't know how to use him right (yeah, there's no history of players succeeding in that system)? Why am I or Pax boohooing? I think he made a good deal with Rose considering the hand he was dealt.


Rose was a borderline All-Star the season before he was traded. The only full season he played for the bulls. Whatever hand Pax was "dealt" he made on his own by talking down his own player.

There was a LOT of talk about Rose for Wallyworld back then, too.



> All of your arguments are so incredibly speculative. Wouldn't Pax have been shopping him during the offseason (before he was injured? I hardly remember this injury)? I don't recall fear that the injury would permanently affect his game so why would it substantially change his value with other GMs? If the injury was considered serious wouldn't Pax risk being unable to move the contract at all if he waited and Jalen didn't improve? Also, Jalen's stock already took a huge hit in '03 when he jacked up 19 shots a game and shot only 40% from the field.


Pax in all his genius promised playoffs WITH THE TEAM AS IT WAS. A 4-14 record to start the season (after going ~.500 until the circus trip) and with Rose injured, and Pax had a fire sale. It is not speculation that the team's record went from 30 wins (up from 21) to 23 wins because of his moves. it is not speculation that Pax's record as GM is not .500.





> How would that have been done?


Sign curry, play him full or part time. After the season, trade him. 



> So you're just completely ignoring the arguments I presented for why precise draft position is totally arbitrary? Explain why a #3 or #4 is in no way comparable to Tyrus and I'll do it.


Huh? Explain to me why you think a #30 pick in the draft should be a better NBA player than the #1 pick.




> If I was claiming that Tyrus would be as good as any of those four superstars you might be onto something. I never claimed Tyrus will one day be a superstar, you claimed he is a failed draft pick.


I claim he's not at all proven to be even as good as ERob was as a rookie. Maybe it's your subjective opinion or there's some per 48 minute stat that makes you fantasize he's actually good.

I also claim that as a #2 (or #4) pick, he's not been anywhere near the contributor all but a VERY few other #2 picks in history have been.



> Kobe is the only one who was on a contending team and I will refer you back to the list I posted.


Why is your list meaningful? Which are the #2 picks?




> What do you mean find a player? I just posted an entire list. Every one of those players was in the top 5. Why will it take Thomas five seasons to be successful? Most of the players I listed dramatically improved in their second season.


We heard the same old garbage about Curry and Chandler until Pax' patience ran out. Crawford, too.

Are you going to hold out until TT is traded or cut before you admit he's a failure? (Should it come to that). Or every year are you going to speculate that he's still got upside, no matter what his actual production is, and tell me that "upside" is worth more than, say, a legit NBA C putting up 17/8 kind of numbers?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Rose was a borderline All-Star the season before he was traded. The only full season he played for the bulls. Whatever hand Pax was "dealt" he made on his own by talking down his own player.
> 
> There was a LOT of talk about Rose for Wallyworld back then, too.


Like I said, Jalen hurt his stock a lot with his horrific shot selection the season that he went 23/5/5. Krause is the one who acquired Rose so I don't see how it's Pax's fault that Rose turned 31 and showed his age.



DaBullz said:


> Pax in all his genius promised playoffs WITH THE TEAM AS IT WAS. A 4-14 record to start the season (after going ~.500 until the circus trip) and with Rose injured, and Pax had a fire sale. It is not speculation that the team's record went from 30 wins (up from 21) to 23 wins because of his moves. it is not speculation that Pax's record as GM is not .500.


I'd rather win 23 games than 30. Neither record sniff the playoffs and the lower win total gives you more ping pong balls. You've went from claiming Pax has lost every trade he's ever made to excoriating the man for a poor playoff prediction?



DaBullz said:


> Sign curry, play him full or part time. After the season, trade him.


I don't see how that would've worked. Clearly Pax didn't feel comfortable putting Curry back on the floor in a Bulls uniform. Furthermore, what if Isiah got canned and no one else would take the uninsured contract? We would be stuck. What if Curry got hurt?



DaBullz said:


> Huh? Explain to me why you think a #30 pick in the draft should be a better NBA player than the #1 pick.


Read the section of my post that you quoted. It says "#3 or #4" not 30. Did you somehow see a zero on the end? The reasons were 1) drafts vary in quality 2) the difference between a few spots is oftentimes purely a matter of opinion or fit.




DaBullz said:


> I claim he's not at all proven to be even as good as ERob was as a rookie. Maybe it's your subjective opinion or there's some per 48 minute stat that makes you fantasize he's actually good.


Well I do diagree because Tyrus' per minute numbers are better. Is there a reason you find that reasoning flawed? You act as though MPG are the most accurate measure of a players worth and that the quality of the team has no effect on a rookie's playing time. But what difference would it make if ERob's rookie season is better? You think I couldn't list countless examples of poor careers by players with strong rookie seasons?



DaBullz said:


> I also claim that as a #2 (or #4) pick, he's not been anywhere near the contributor all but a VERY few other #2 picks in history have been.
> 
> Why is your list meaningful? Which are the #2 picks?


Every player on the list was a top five pick. Sorry man, I've explained why the distinction between a #2 pick and a number # pick is meaningless. 



DaBullz said:


> We heard the same old garbage about Curry and Chandler until Pax' patience ran out. Crawford, too.
> 
> Are you going to hold out until TT is traded or cut before you admit he's a failure? (Should it come to that). Or every year are you going to speculate that he's still got upside, no matter what his actual production is, and tell me that "upside" is worth more than, say, a legit NBA C putting up 17/8 kind of numbers?


I think Curry and Crawford are good players. Curry would probably still be on the Bulls if he didn't develop a heart problem. Chandler would probably still be on the club if Reinsdorf gave Pax permission to cross the luxury tax threshold. Obviously I'd hope that Tyrus doesn't take that long to succeed but unlike those two he was a top flight player in one of the most challenging leagues in the world.

I'm not sure Curry will ever average 8 RPG. He's one of the worst rebounding centers in basketball. The original statement you made that I objective to was that "the results [of the Curry trade] are in" and the Bulls lost. If the way to evaluate the trade in your opinion is to evaluate how the players perform then the logical thing to do would be to wait and see how Tyrus perform and who the NY pick swapped is used to draft. But since you're asking, I think that 15/10/3.5 BPG is will within Tyrus' upside and that those numbers would compare to Eddy's performance so far this season. That's without even mentioning the pick swap which while the odds are starting to look slim could still lead to Durant or Oden.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure Curry will ever average 8 RPG. He's one of the worst rebounding centers in basketball. The original statement you made that I objective to was that "the results [of the Curry trade] are in" and the Bulls lost. If the way to evaluate the trade in your opinion is to evaluate how the players perform then the logical thing to do would be to *wait and see *how Tyrus perform and who the NY pick swapped is used to draft. But since you're asking, I think that 15/10/3.5 BPG is will within Tyrus' upside and that those numbers would compare to Eddy's performance so far this season. That's without even mentioning the pick swap which while the odds are starting to look slim could still lead to Durant or Oden.


Wait and see. that's the gist of your argument.

How long do you have to wait and see for any of the #2 picks in the history of the NBA?

I've seen enough. he's not even a top 75% of all players in the league kind of player.

it's not relevent if Thomas is a bust. it IS relevent that it was as near as a sure thing can be that he wouldn't contribute much and it's a gamble that he ever will.

If he picked a guy who actually had some likelihood of contributing right away, let alone being a special player from the 1st minute he took the court, but the guy turned out to be a bust, I wouldn't find fault with it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> *I don't know what Paxson would include.* I, personally, would definitely be willing to include Hinrich.
> 
> Yes, I think it would be worthwile depending on who else we have to include. But the concept of including Hinrich gives me no pause.


C'mon, wager a guess :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> C'mon, wager a guess :biggrin:


My guess would be that, yes, he'd be willing to include Hinrich.

Very reluctantly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> C'mon, wager a guess :biggrin:


My guess would be that, yes, he'd be willing to include Hinrich.

Very reluctantly.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Wait and see. that's the gist of your argument.
> 
> How long do you have to wait and see for any of the #2 picks in the history of the NBA?
> 
> ...


Personally I don't believe in using a "wait and see" (hindsight) approach to evaluate transactions. Sometimes a GM makes a great move but gets unlucky (eg acquiring a player who suffers a freak injury and is never the same again). I've been arguing in that manner since it's the way you discuss moves and it can be hard to evaluate a deal at the time it was made because we don't have much of the information that was available to the key players at the time (eg the scouting reports Pax relied on when he decided to draft Thomas). 

Who do you think the Bulls should have drafted? No one in this draft class has lived up to the standards you're setting. You seem to be railing on Pax for failing to draft a player who didn't exist in this draft. I don't really know what else to say. He's only played in 23 NBA games and there are countless raw players taken early in every draft these days based on potential. Multiple analysts said prior to the draft Tyrus had the best chance to become a star of all the players in the draft and continue to make that statement. He's made some amazing plays and with the exception of his FG% and FT% his numbers are good. I don't think he's a failure just because Skiles likes to give minutes to Allen and Brown.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Personally I don't believe in using a "wait and see" (hindsight) approach to evaluate transactions. Sometimes a GM makes a great move but gets unlucky (eg acquiring a player who suffers a freak injury and is never the same again). I've been arguing in that manner since it's the way you discuss moves and it can be hard to evaluate a deal at the time it was made because we don't have much of the information that was available to the key players at the time (eg the scouting reports Pax relied on when he decided to draft Thomas).
> 
> Who do you think the Bulls should have drafted? No one in this draft class has lived up to the standards you're setting. You seem to be railing on Pax for failing to draft a player who didn't exist in this draft. I don't really know what else to say. He's only played in 23 NBA games and there are countless raw players taken early in every draft these days based on potential. Multiple analysts said prior to the draft Tyrus had the best chance to become a star of all the players in the draft and continue to make that statement. He's made some amazing plays and with the exception of his FG% and FT% his numbers are good. I don't think he's a failure just because Skiles likes to give minutes to Allen and Brown.


My position has been clear since before the draft, and I've said it in this thread, too.

If Pax had drafted a guy who could and should (on paper) contribute right away, I wouldn't have a beef with the pick. That's whether the pick turned out to be a bust or not (it happens).

Specifically, you want to look at the draft class when you have the #2 pick and get a ben gordon kind of pick (he was #3, contributed right away at 6MOY level).

So: Morrison, Gay, Aldridge, Brewer, Williams, Roy ... (in no particular order) ... and potentially others.

Especially after signing Ben Wallace, who IS one of the better players in the whole league but who gives us a short window of opportunity to win with him at near peak performance.

Or you trade the pick for a pick next year, like Phoenix did (how we got Deng).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> ]
> 
> I keep bringing up ERob. Not only was ERob amazingly athletic, teams (and the bulls especially) went after him as a FA after his stock rose for a playoff performance (akin to TT's college games).



If you can't see the difference in heart between TT and ERob, I don't know what you're watching. 

Did you see how well Thomas played tonight? 

Just under 14 minutes. 4-4 from the field, 2-2 from the line, 4 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 turnover, 10 points.

I'm sorry, but trying to say that you can tell Thomas is a bust based on the first 23 games of the year is ludicrous. He looked great tonight, and showed a lot of composure taking over for Nocioni after he fouled out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> If you can't see the difference in heart between TT and ERob, I don't know what you're watching.
> 
> Did you see how well Thomas played tonight?
> 
> ...


Cable went out in the middle of the game.

Did Thomas make a shot from outside of 4 ft from the basket?

I mean, ERob's shot was ugly, but he made outside shots at a fair clip. He was a spectacular dunker, too. When healthy.

EDIT:

OK, let's try a different tack. You think Thomas is going to be rookie of the year?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> My position has been clear since before the draft, and I've said it in this thread, too.
> 
> If Pax had drafted a guy who could and should (on paper) contribute right away, I wouldn't have a beef with the pick. That's whether the pick turned out to be a bust or not (it happens).
> 
> ...


Hmm. Well you certainly have the right to that preference. I can't really say I understand it though. The Bulls are one of the deepest teams in the league, that's the main reason why Tyrus and Thabo aren't playing more. Our success this season doesn't hinge on adding a reserve to play 20 quality minutes per game. Plus there wasn't a player in this draft capable of contributing the way that Ben Gordon did as a rookie. Morison was advertised as the most read to contribute and he's been quite poor.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Hmm. Well you certainly have the right to that preference. I can't really say I understand it though. The Bulls are one of the deepest teams in the league, that's the main reason why Tyrus and Thabo aren't playing more. Our success this season doesn't hinge on adding a reserve to play 20 quality minutes per game. Plus there wasn't a player in this draft capable of contributing the way that Ben Gordon did as a rookie. Morison was advertised as the most read to contribute and he's been quite poor.


We had two glaring needs going into the draft: inside big player with height, and big SG/SF type.

We still have two glaring needs.

Portland had the draft I think we should have had. Aldridge and Roy would have filled both our needs, and you'd have a hard time NOT finding playing time for them.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> We had two glaring needs going into the draft: inside big player with height, and big SG/SF type.
> 
> We still have two glaring needs.
> 
> Portland had the draft I think we should have had. Aldridge and Roy would have filled both our needs, and you'd have a hard time NOT finding playing time for them.


no, our needs were a SCORING big and a big SG who could run some pg....

those needs weren't necessarily supposed to be filled THROUGH the draft though


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> no, our needs were a SCORING big and a big SG who could run some pg....
> 
> those needs weren't necessarily supposed to be filled THROUGH the draft though


Exactly how were they filled?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Exactly how were they filled?


Thabo Sefolosha...SG/PG/SF...6"7...crazy wingspan, excellent defender, passer and ballhandler....FILLED

we definintely didn't fill that scoring PF spot...

My biggest issue is, Khyrapa actually is pretty good at the PF spot...especially having a couple of different ways to score...he isn't the answer but he could actually HELP the situation somewhat...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> ]
> OK, let's try a different tack. You think Thomas is going to be rookie of the year?



You keep shifting the argument to the point of absurdity. My whole point is that the rationale for drafting Tyrus is NOT AT ALL that he will be the best player this year. It is that he will be the best player ON THE WHOLE. I know you think that runs contrary to the Bulls' chance to win now, and that's a valid point. But you've said you've "seen enough" to know what Tyrus will become. That's BS. The guy could very well still end up being a phenomenal player.

So, to answer your question, even though it is not germane to the issue I'm trying to address, no, I do not think he will be. I think that's tangential to the debate I'm trying to have.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We had two glaring needs going into the draft: inside big player with height, and big SG/SF type.
> 
> We still have two glaring needs.
> 
> Portland had the draft I think we should have had. Aldridge and Roy would have filled both our needs, and you'd have a hard time NOT finding playing time for them.


Portland seems to be finding it pretty easy to "NOT find playing time" for LaMarcus Aldridge. Odd.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Portland seems to be finding it pretty easy to "NOT find playing time" for LaMarcus Aldridge. Odd.


Portland is deep at Aldridge's position, unlike us.

Magloire, Pryzbilla, Randolph, LaFrentz, etc.

When he does play, he's quite good. 

The guys on the blazers' board seem to want him to play a lot more and are pretty pissed at McMillan for playing the others over him.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If Paxson can trade for more home games, I think we'll end up with a pretty good record this season.

:biggrin:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Portland is deep at Aldridge's position, unlike us.
> 
> Magloire, Pryzbilla, Randolph, LaFrentz, etc.
> 
> ...


I'll give you this much : he's taller than Tyrus Thomas. 7 and 4 in 20 minutes a game is pretty much a PJ Brown line.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'll give you this much : he's taller than Tyrus Thomas. 7 and 4 in 20 minutes a game is pretty much a PJ Brown line.


We wish PJ Brown had that stat line.

He's actualy that bad.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> We had two glaring needs going into the draft: inside big player with height, and big SG/SF type.
> 
> We still have two glaring needs.
> 
> Portland had the draft I think we should have had. Aldridge and Roy would have filled both our needs, and you'd have a hard time NOT finding playing time for them.


Well drafting both wasn't an option considering the picks that the Bulls had. Most people will say that you don't use top picks to fill holes, you draft the most talented player and fill holes through free agency and trades. Your idea that you spend top 15 picks drafting the players who will best fill holes in your team the very next season and more or less ignore all other considerations flies in the face of the draft strategy used by every team in the NBA.

I don't really see how Thabo has failed to fill the "glaring" big SG hole (What is the SF hole? We have Deng and Noc). He's played comptently and even forced Skiles to up his minutes lately. Hinrich and Gordon deserve most of the minutes and Skiles is very fond of Duhon's game. Conventional wisdom is that we sometimes needed a bigger 2 for defense and Skiles has used Thabo that way at times, even twice sticking him on arguably the best scorer in the league. I don't understand how you constantly turn Skiles (occasionally questionable) rotation decisions into indictments of the rookies. Using that logic, Duhon is a better player than Gordon because he starts. If Gordon was a better player, Skiles would "have a hard time NOT" starting him. 

I also don't think the 20 pounds and one inch Aldridge has over Tyrus would net him tons of minutes in Skiles' rotation. The numbers are pretty clear that Aldridge has not produced more than Tyrus and Tyrus has the better reputation defensively.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Well drafting both wasn't an option considering the picks that the Bulls had. Most people will say that you don't use top picks to fill holes, you draft the most talented player and fill holes through free agency and trades. Your idea that you spend top 15 picks drafting the players who will best fill holes in your team the very next season and more or less ignore all other considerations flies in the face of the draft strategy used by every team in the NBA.


Gee, Paxson filled our two biggest holes by taking Gordon and Deng. Go figure.

And we didn't pick the most talented player. We picked a project who was mostly one-dimensional in college even.



> I don't really see how Thabo has failed to fill the "glaring" big SG hole (What is the SF hole? We have Deng and Noc). He's played comptently and even forced Skiles to up his minutes lately. Hinrich and Gordon deserve most of the minutes and Skiles is very fond of Duhon's game. Conventional wisdom is that we sometimes needed a bigger 2 for defense and Skiles has used Thabo that way at times, even twice sticking him on arguably the best scorer in the league. I don't understand how you constantly turn Skiles (occasionally questionable) rotation decisions into indictments of the rookies. Using that logic, Duhon is a better player than Gordon because he starts. If Gordon was a better player, Skiles would "have a hard time NOT" starting him.


The bulls team I watch with Skiles coaching plays 3 guards a lot. One of them has to play SF on defense in that configuration.

And, Skiles has a losing record with the bulls. At this point, I'm convinced Gordon has made him look like a lot better coach than he actually is.



> I also don't think the 20 pounds and one inch Aldridge has over Tyrus would net him tons of minutes in Skiles' rotation. The numbers are pretty clear that Aldridge has not produced more than Tyrus and Tyrus has the better reputation defensively.


Aldridge had surgery on his shoulder. He may or may not have injured it if he was drafted by a different team. I'm pretty sure that if we had him, PJ Brown, Viktor, and Sweetney might not see the court much at all.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Aldridge had surgery on his shoulder. He may or may not have injured it if he was drafted by a different team. I'm pretty sure that if we had him, PJ Brown, Viktor, and Sweetney might not see the court much at all.


I'd be shocked if Thomas wasn't the better pro by next season.

[edit - tyrus thomas over the last 3 games : 41 minutes, 24 points, 9 rebounds, 3 blocks, 4 steals, 2 assists, 6 of 7 from the field, 17 free throw attempts]


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Gee, Paxson filled our two biggest holes by taking Gordon and Deng. Go figure.
> 
> And we didn't pick the most talented player. We picked a project who was mostly one-dimensional in college even.


According to most b-ball writer's at ESPN over the summer, Tyrus was the most talented player in the draft, him and Rudy Gay, so THEY said.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

It's time :

Luol Deng
NY 2007 Pick
P.J. Brown (expiring)
Michael Sweetney (expiring)
Two 2007 2nd rounders

for K.G.

With all the assets aquired from NY for the Eddy deal, we gain K.G., T.T. & B.W.? c'mon now, if that's on the table, we have to do it. Yes Luol is becoming a very good player, but so is Gordon and so WILL Khyrapa, Thomas & Sefolosha.

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Gordon / Sefolosha
F Nocioni / Khyrapa
F Garnett / Thomas
C Wallace

How is that NOT a NBA finals team THIS season? If by some chance, we can't retain Noc, T.T. steps in at his true position (so he says) & plays SF for the next 10 years. Resign Khyrapa for the MLE & pick up a back-up C. We'd have a 3 year window. We still have growing youth & star vets.

Minne would get to rebuild with Foye, Deng, two lotto picks, two 2nd rounders & capspace. How do they NOT make this move?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> It's time :
> 
> Luol Deng
> NY 2007 Pick
> ...



We'd still need to add a little more than $2.1 million to make the salaries work vs. his current salary, and that doesn't even factor in the trade kicker that I've been hearing about.

I think this deal is possible if Garnett demands a trade, but I think it would take more to get him, which your own trade proposal was pointing at by throwing in the second rounders.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> We'd still need to add a little more than $2.1 million to make the salaries work vs. his current salary, and that doesn't even factor in the trade kicker that I've been hearing about.
> 
> I think this deal is possible if Garnett demands a trade, but I think it would take more to get him, which your own trade proposal was pointing at by throwing in the second rounders.


KG can give up enough of the trade kicker for the trade to work. It's up to him.

If we could make this deal, using ballast to make the salaries work, I'd be all over it.

Reality is that the ballast is sure to be Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> KG can give up enough of the trade kicker for the trade to work. It's up to him.
> 
> If we could make this deal, using ballast to make the salaries work, I'd be all over it.
> 
> Reality is that the ballast is sure to be Tyrus Thomas.


The deal I proposed for mchale is a steal IMO. After seeing what A.I. drew, he can't possibly think we'd give up the NY pick, Tyrus, Deng & Pj, that's just not gonna happen. Getting two out of the three (deng, tyrus and the pick) should be enough. Besides, in that daily herald article, it says they had talks and the stipulations were Tyrus, Deng and possibly a 1st rounder.

My issue is, would you guys give up TYRUS and DENG but keep the NY pick? I personally couldn't do that.

I DO believe we'll try to get that deal done by the deadline though. Minnesota is going absolutely nowhere.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> The deal I proposed for mchale is a steal IMO. After seeing what A.I. drew, he can't possibly think we'd give up the NY pick, Tyrus, Deng & Pj, that's just not gonna happen. Getting two out of the three (deng, tyrus and the pick) should be enough. Besides, in that daily herald article, it says they had talks and the stipulations were Tyrus, Deng and possibly a 1st rounder.
> 
> My issue is, would you guys give up TYRUS and DENG but keep the NY pick? I personally couldn't do that.
> 
> I DO believe we'll try to get that deal done by the deadline though. Minnesota is going absolutely nowhere.


Tyrus, Deng, PJ Brown, and the 1st rounder isn't enough salary to make the deal work.

It would be the same deal you proposed with Tyrus added - e.g. add Sweetney's contract and it works.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> KG can give up enough of the trade kicker for the trade to work. It's up to him.
> 
> If we could make this deal, using ballast to make the salaries work, I'd be all over it.
> 
> Reality is that the ballast is sure to be Tyrus Thomas.


Would you give up Deng, Thomas, and the NYK pick for KG as principles? For some reason, I don't like it. I'd be much more comfortable giving up Noc, Thomas, and the pick (which I view as probably is "fair value")


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The ROY said:


> The deal I proposed for mchale is a steal IMO. After seeing what A.I. drew, he can't possibly think we'd give up the NY pick, Tyrus, Deng & Pj, that's just not gonna happen. Getting two out of the three (deng, tyrus and the pick) should be enough. Besides, in that daily herald article, it says they had talks and the stipulations were Tyrus, Deng and possibly a 1st rounder.
> 
> My issue is, would you guys give up TYRUS and DENG but keep the NY pick? I personally couldn't do that.
> 
> I DO believe we'll try to get that deal done by the deadline though. Minnesota is going absolutely nowhere.


No offense, the ROY, but McHale won't do that deal.

People keep looking at the Iverson trade as some sort of an indication for what Garnett might go for. 

Allen Iverson walked off the floor during a loss, made a private trade demand that went public, was publicly banned from being with the team, and his locker was closed up and his nameplate removed. 

Philly HAD TO and DESPARATELY WANTED TO trade Iverson. And despite how good he is, he has a reputation around the league of not being able to co-exist with other good players. 

Its doubtful the Garnett situation will be similar. McHale has been reluctant to trade KG to such an extent that he's ruined his team. McHale won't part with KG unless he gets major value in return. If he doesn't, he'll just keep him. 

Its possible, but I don't see anything going down with KG like it did with Iverson where there was such a public necessity of trading him. 

KG is going to go for A LOT more than Iverson did. Deng, the ever-decreasingly desirable Knicks pick, and expiring contracts is not going to get it done. No way.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Would you give up Deng, Thomas, and the NYK pick for KG as principles? For some reason, I don't like it. I'd be much more comfortable giving up Noc, Thomas, and the pick (which I view as probably is "fair value")


I gotta agree with Penguin. 

Minny is absolutely going to want Deng, TT, and the pick.

The pick isn't the NYK pick, it's OUR pick. If we trade the rights to SWAP for the NYK pick (which it would be), we'd be without a pick.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Deng, the ever-decreasingly desirable Knicks pick, and expiring contracts is not going to get it done. No way.


I'm not seeing it.

His (Mchale's) situation is getting worse by the day.

If you have a chance to rebuild with Deng, Foye, Mccants, two lotto picks and a good amount of capspace (don't know how much), I don't get how you don't jump at the deal. NOBODY is gonna give him a better deal than Chicago, regardless. I think the fact that we've waited so long should make this trade much easier to accomplish anyway. He could have probably gotten much more last season.

But hey, whatever, I still think a deal will get done before the deadline for K.G.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I'm not seeing it.
> 
> His (Mchale's) situation is getting worse by the day.
> 
> ...


i'm going to agree with this; the longer mchale waits, the less he stands to get on the KG deal. he *cannot* expect equal value for KG; it's just not there for a 20 mil player. i'd hate to lose luol, but if tyrus is waiting in the wings, at least there's the potential to replace what deng brought to the table. if minny is looking for more, maybe they can hope to rape some other team; frankly, i don't see ANY team giving up the farm for KG, regardless of his status. historically, no team has gotten fair value for moving a superstar. maybe someone can illustrate what team has, but paxson would be foolish to allow such to happen.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Shaq for Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, Brian Grant, 1st round pick.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Mike Fratello just got canned by Memphis. Anyone have a guess as to how this could affect Gasol's status?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SALO said:


> Mike Fratello just got canned by Memphis. Anyone have a guess as to how this could affect Gasol's status?


Gasol's gonna demand a trade very soon. They've lost every single game since he's been back.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I gotta agree with Penguin.
> 
> Minny is absolutely going to want Deng, TT, and the pick.
> 
> The pick isn't the NYK pick, it's OUR pick. If we trade the rights to SWAP for the NYK pick (which it would be), we'd be without a pick.


I agree that they will want Deng, TT, and the pick. I would not give them that.

I would give them Noc, TT, and the pick.

The pick is the NYK pick until they have a better record than us. Yes, I realize we would not have a pick (and that I was using shorthand).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I agree that they will want Deng, TT, and the pick. I would not give them that.
> 
> I would give them Noc, TT, and the pick.
> 
> The pick is the NYK pick until they have a better record than us. Yes, I realize we would not have a pick (and that I was using shorthand).


I'm with you, except that I have a feeling that Noc would fit in better on a KG-led team with his 3-pt shooting. Seems like Deng's cutting and slashing occurs in space that KG would be occupying in the high post and baseline. 

But then again, I'm a bigger Deng fan than a Noc fan (though I adore both players) and Deng ought to have more value.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm with you, except that I have a feeling that Noc would fit in better on a KG-led team with his 3-pt shooting. Seems like Deng's cutting and slashing occurs in space that KG would be occupying in the high post and baseline.
> 
> But then again, I'm a bigger Deng fan than a Noc fan (though I adore both players) and Deng ought to have more value.


I dream of KG in the pick and roll offense up top with Hinrich, with Wallace setting a backdoor screen to free up Deng. All that with Hinrich and Gordon spotted up behind the arc. If we run that, it would provide offensive opportunties for everyone on the court doing things they excel at.

Any type of motion offense needs a cutter, and Deng is excelling in that role. That said, we probably could stand to pick up a three-point specialist to have on the bench. I'm sure there will be times where we want to have 3 3-point shooters on the floor without the three-guard offense.

Also, trading Noc would defer having to re-sign a player for one more year, making the acquisition of KG more acceptable as Wallace and Hinrich's contracts roll down. Not that the spending habits of our owners should enter any discussion :raised_ey


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I dream of KG in the pick and roll offense up top with Hinrich, with Wallace setting a backdoor screen to free up Deng. All that with Hinrich and Gordon spotted up behind the arc. If we run that, it would provide offensive opportunties for everyone on the court doing things they excel at.
> 
> Any type of motion offense needs a cutter, and Deng is excelling in that role. That said, we probably could stand to pick up a three-point specialist to have on the bench. I'm sure there will be times where we want to have 3 3-point shooters on the floor without the three-guard offense.
> 
> Also, trading Noc would defer having to re-sign a player for one more year, making the acquisition of KG more acceptable as Wallace and Hinrich's contracts roll down. Not that the spending habits of our owners should enter any discussion :raised_ey


I like it...:cheers:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Gee, Paxson filled our two biggest holes by taking Gordon and Deng. Go figure.
> 
> And we didn't pick the most talented player. We picked a project who was mostly one-dimensional in college even.


So he should just snap his fingers again and end up with two top seven picks? In a poor draft no less? Sorry, I don't think that makes sense. Rebounds, blocks, man defense, finishing at the basket...seems like more than one dimension than me. The most talented player in the draft usually goes number one, I'm not sure you can fault Pax for drafting 2 instead of one. Furthermore, you're more than welcome to assert your opinion, but it's preposterous to state as a fact that Tyrus is definitely not the most talented player considering how many people who are paid to write about basketball think he has the best chance of becoming a star player of anyone in his draft class. If you disagree that's fine but that's a matter of opinion not fact.



DaBullz said:


> The bulls team I watch with Skiles coaching plays 3 guards a lot. One of them has to play SF on defense in that configuration.
> 
> And, Skiles has a losing record with the bulls. At this point, I'm convinced Gordon has made him look like a lot better coach than he actually is.


Well if you want to talk about Pax's decision to sign and resign Skiles that's a completely different discussion. I'll assume you're agreeing with me though that Skiles' decision to play a small three guard lineup sometimes doesn't mean that Thabo has failed to fill the big SG hole that's been a problem the past couple seasons.



DaBullz said:


> Aldridge had surgery on his shoulder. He may or may not have injured it if he was drafted by a different team. I'm pretty sure that if we had him, PJ Brown, Viktor, and Sweetney might not see the court much at all.


I really don't understand how you can say that your arguments aren't speculative and then write something like that. You're speculating about what would happen if the Bulls had drafted Aldridge instead of Thomas without offering one iota of support for your argument. Aldridge would be playing more than Tyrus if we'd drafted him instead because you say so? Ok...


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

I wonder if AD has gotten tired of Kendra's home cooking yet?

A good backup 4/5 to have on the roster at playoff time, and the price is right.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I wonder if AD has gotten tired of Kendra's home cooking yet?
> 
> A good backup 4/5 to have on the roster at playoff time, and the price is right.


All he has to do is come on down.

Sorry, just had to do it.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Sweetney, Brown, Nocioni, Duhon, Khyrapa.....

That would be the package I'd try to move before the deadline...

Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Sefolosha & Thomas are the future of the team.


----------



## rene_mezny (May 24, 2006)

Sorry DaBullz is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Sigh.


----------



## Blueoak (Aug 4, 2004)

Pax isn't going to do anything major. All of the important current Bulls (aka Paxsonites) were either drafted or signed. The big you all want will probably be drafted using the 'Pick' (tm).


----------

