# Grade our GM.



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

In my view Paxson has been substandard in the aspect of putting a competitive team on the floor.

Paxson entered his job with little or no managerial experience and has done very little to inspire faith that he knows what to do in regards to putting a good team out on the floor.

he has had 21 months on the job and after 26 games the record is the same as the season he took the job.(9-17)

I dont see a light at the end of the tunnel as i did before he took the team over. But in the interest of being fair I will go over his moves since he has been GM.

following a 30-52 season which was a rise from 21-61 the previous year the bulls and john paxson drafted kirk hinrich with the #7 pick, good pick.some have a problem with him not going for wade and making a trade that was supposedly on the table , but at the end of the day kirk is a good pick , 2 offseasons later maybe the clips would trade their pick that year for him but kaman is a center of some promise so maybe not, there were no players taken behind kirk that are flat out better than him , there are a few it could be argued the bulls would make better use of or are more talented , but basically kirk hinrich at #7 is a good pick, a combo guard who can shoot,pass and defend. Especially considering Jay williams wrecked his body and his nba career with an ill fated and contractually illegal motorcycle accident , which makes Pax's hands a little tied when it came to a selection.

pax's 2nd round picks are mario austin , matt bonner and tommie smith., none of the 3 have yet to play a minute in an nba game for the bulls although bonner has played quite a bit for the raptors, as pax traded that pick for a future #2, bonner is at this point training camp fodder, and smith is holding a roster spot as the only bull not to have played in a game or even made it to the active roster as a 24 year old project player., this aspect of the draft was handled badly.

After the draft Hoiberg , bagaric,& brunson, were not retained and were replaced with kendall gill and scottie pippen on the vet exception and MLE deals and hinrich entering training camp. Gill and pippen really didn't work out they were both injured for most of the year and combined to play in 79 games and 1823 minutes , pippen in 412 the same # as rick brunson, in the 23 games pippen played as supposedly a "glue " player the bulls were 3-20.

this offseason went very bad kendall gill was not retained , and pippen was bought out essentially giving him 10 mil. for 412 minutes of poor play.

at some point during this offseason paxson decided this was a good team and said it would make the playoffs and launched the ill fated slogan "No Excuses".

in camp trenton hassell was cut in favor of linton johnson the 3rd, LJ3 was cut in dec. and later brought back. He started at points during the season(20 games). Both Hassell and hoiberg caught on with the T'wolves and had much better seasons than they had had with the bulls, both were resigned with multi yr. deals .

the bulls started out the 2003-04 season 4-10 with some blowout losses, bill cartwright is fired pete myers coaches the team to 0-2 and scott skiles is hired , the bulls go 19-47 the rest of the season, finishing 23-59.

the bulls during the season made a few roster moves such as trading Jalen rose , lonny baxter and donyell marshall for Antonio davis , jerome williams and chris jefferies, trading roger mason jr. for rick brunson, signing ronald dupree , and janero pargo, cutting corie blount after the date he could sign with an nba team in time for the playoffs for paul shirley.

the moves in my opinion all went badly for the bulls we lost talent , and scoring in the rose deal , basically all the other moves amounted to nothing only pargo is even on the team and he was signed march 15th , for over 3 weeks prior to that the bulls only had 3 guards on their roster up until that point it was just brunson, crawford and hinrich as the other guards were injured.

the bulls let fizer go in the expansion draft, he currently plays for the bucks.

the bulls draft ben gordon with their pick (#3) trade their 2nd round pick and a furture 1st rounder(top 3 protected) for the 7th pick , which becomes luol deng, and drafts chris duhon in the 2nd round with a pick received from tor. from the matt bonner trade.

seeing as duhon and deng start and play relatively well they look like good selections at this point especially duhon , gordon whom he has beaten out for that spot does not. at #3 the thinking is a star player should be selected that high , and while he has had some good scoring bursts he hasn't been good enough to play alonside hinrich or unseat duhon, especially considering there are alot of players in the draft who are making a real impact.

As for player movement the bulls traded Jamal crawford for deke mutumbo , othella harrington, frank williams and czary trybanski.

mutumbo refused to report so he was traded to houston for adrian griffin and eric piatkowski.

Andres nocioni was signed for part of the MLE , chris jefferies , was cut, eddie robinson and scottie pippen were bought out tommie smith made the roster and has yet to play, jared reiner made the roster as a training camp invitee, linton johnson 3rd was signed by the spurs , dupree signed with the pistons , Paul shirley left for the suns where he was later cut and brunson left to play for the clippers.

the bulls are currently 9-17 as they were the year paxson took charge of the team . there has been alot of roster turnover but very little improvement.

we have lost on virtually all of our trades , the draft selections have been for the most part good but not spectacular, the gordon selection brings his draft record down a bit. and the 2nd round selctions have been spotty.
Free agent aquisitions supposedly a strong point for paxson has been weak we didn't even use our vet exception this season , and the MLE usage the year before was the worst in the league, and I say for what?

3 lottery selections and 2 MLE's are supposed to bring about some real improvement especially since he inherited a young team who won 30 games , the bulls are on pace for 28 wins , he could have in my opinion sat on his hands and just thrown his money at whoever was free for the MLE and pick whomever was the consensus pick at whatever selection he had in the draft and done a better job.

those who say paxson has done a good job i just want to know how?

how has he done a good job with no improvements?

my grade D-


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

B

His drafts have been very good

Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Duhon

His trades look lopsided but they have helped us get rid of guys that don't fit into his system like Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford. I believe the Crawford trade gives us some financial freedom in a year or two.

I really like the Nocioni move and getting rid of Eddie Robinson. And I like the hiring of Scott Skiles.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

The guys that Paxson has brought in are more competitive, have more fire, have more heart and are turning the team mentality around. Its the mentality that needed to be changed. Guys like Crawford, Rose and Curry were never going to get it done together. They all play too lackadaisical, and don't really have a very intelligent approach to the game. 

Rose is horrible. He is a statstuffer who gets bored wherever he plays and consistently gets worse until he gets traded, where the cycle repeats. He isn't a good systems player, he isn't a smart basketball player, he isn't a winner. Paxson used him to bring in some interior strength. The Bulls have been horrible on the interior since trading Brand, so getting rid of a cancer for a decent big man is a plus. 

Then you have Crawford, who is a good player, but is still too inconsistent and doesn't really play an intelligent floor game. Either way, he is a good player and I would have been in favor of re-signing him if Gordon wasn't there. Paxson drafted Gordon to replace Crawford, and Gordon is going to be a much better player than Crawford. There is really no need for Crawford on this team for the money he was asking. The Bulls have more important players to lock up for the long term. 

Hinrich, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni and Gordon were all fantastic pickups. These guys are systems players who can be impact players within a team system. They all played for elite college teams under great coaches who stressed the team game. They don't take forever to learn basic sets and plays, they know the game well from playing and living organized basketball their whole life. Nocioni has yet to get it going, but is an energy player who basically did all his work off the ball in the olympics. Soon as he adjusts, he'll be very good too, and his contract is real cheap. 

These guys want to win, they have passion and fire, and are efficient on the court. They listen, they fight hard, and they are disciplined. That has been Paxson's vision since day one. Thats why he brought in guys like Ronald Dupree and Linton Johnson, because they fought hard. Unfortunetly, they weren't that talented. Our rookies are talented, and posess the same fight in them. 

I've liked the direction this team has been going for awhile. Paxson isn't done yet, I don't think. This team is going to fight though, which is something we needed, because teams of the past gave up too easily because they didn't care enough, in my opinion. We still have a losing record, so Paxson hasn't been perfect, but he has done a good job and I like the direction this team is going. 

Grade: B


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

And we want a guy who's anything less than an A because... ?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

See plus/Bee minus


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> And we want a guy who's anything less than an A because... ?


...B is about as good as you get as an NBA GM.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only Paxson move I think was bad was signing Pippen.

1st Round Draft Choices: Hinrich, Gordon and Deng...like 'em all.

Free agents: Nocioni - like a lot. Griffin and Pike - good values.

Trades: Rose and Marshall for AD...good deal - bought us a year. Crawford for cap space - Face it, Crawford wasn't right for the Pax/Skiles team concept, so they unloaded. Would we have ben happier if we'd have signed him to a long-term deal and have him take minutes from Gordon? Square peg-round hole. Get what you can, but whatever you do, don't make a long-term mistake.

Other: Cut the best deal you can to get out from under the ERob deal. He saved the team a few bucks that, if ERob woulda visited the doc before signing, woulda cost the Bulls more money.

For an unqualified clod, not all bad.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*no grade from me yet*

all i'm saying right now is that there is no way in hell this distribution is bell-shaped, IMO.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> how has he done a good job with no improvements?


Positives
We are younger, have more talent, have the flexibility to sign both Chandler and Curry this offseason if we wish, and freed up money for '06.

This is all at the expense of absolutely no change in the win column.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

now this is the part i dont understand , if these guys care so much more about winning than the guys paxson inherited , why dont they win more than those guys?

I take all this crap about players being more competitive as crap , if those guys were such lazy bums and these guys sweat blood for a loose ball , common sense says either those guys were just so much better and underachieved or these guys suck, i think its neither , that team paxson inherited was a 30 win team , those were expectations and thats what happened, but they were maturing and were getting better.

this team is not quite as good or talented imo but close in both departments, and they play better defense under skiles than that group played under cartwright. But of course that group was better on offense.

that team won 30 and was somewhat injury prone(jay will got hurt , donyell broke down fizer missed most of the season when he was playing pretty well E-rob was erob and so on), this team is on pace for 28 and hasn't so much as broken a nail. that team was deeper , if the bulls of today lost one of their top 6 or 7 players they are in the crapper , they dont win without curry and gordon's scoring or hinrich's all around game or chandler's rebounding , duhon's distibution, AD's toughness picks setting kirk and gordon free and skiles guessing right on which "savvy" vet will actually play well that night (pike , othella or griffin) the bulls of today are a team that is the sum of its parts, brought together by good defense.

so like I said if these guys are better and competitive why dont win any more than those guys did?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Grade our GM.*



> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> Positives
> ...


2002-03 2004-05
avg age 24.73 avg age 24.86
curry age 20 curry 22
tyson 20 tyson 22 
jay will 21 ben gordon 21
JC 22 kirk 23
fizer 24 nocioni 25
hassell 23 deng 19 
rose 29 griffin 30
marshall 29 AD 36
hoiberg 30 duhon 22
e-rob 26 pike 30
baxter 23 tommie smith 24
bagaric 22 Reiner 22
brunson 30 pargo 25
mason jr.22 fwill 24
blount 30 harrington 30

we aren't younger , we always had the flexibilty to sign curry and chandler , the bulls make more money than any other franchise and if curry and chandler get max deals or close to it, there wont be enough for a significant deal in 2006, it was always a lie...and all it took was 2 year to be exactly where we already were.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> In my view Paxson has been substandard in the aspect of putting a competitive team on the floor.
> 
> Paxson entered his job with little or no managerial experience and has done very little to inspire faith that he knows what to do in regards to putting a good team out on the floor.
> ...


I love how you added the "-" as if the D wasn't enough to get the point across. :laugh: 

Anyway, except for your comment on Gordon, I see things the same way you do. I think he did a terrible job trying to build up from 30-win team. For that he gets an F or maybe a D- because we didn't completely drop into a 17-win team or anything. 

However this tearing down of that team wasn't the whole story. He's built a new team. For now, it looks promising, but he's barely passing.

I'd give him a C.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

C-

His draft picks have been very solid. But he negates that by trading some of our best and most proven talent for absolutely nothing. Just pure stupidity on his part. Hiring Scott "jerk" Skiles was another mistake.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Drafts- A
Trades- F
Free Agency- D
Integrity- A
Player Relations- B

Total- C-


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

The only major negative for Pax was the horrible off season he had last year. That was partly due to his not really understanding what the team was capable of. We could have had Posey and instead we wasted our mid level with Pippin which only made sense if we were really a playoff team. I can understand one of us being misled but Pax should have judged his talent better last year.

Other than that I think he has been great. His biggest challenge is what to do with Curry. How that ends up will define whether he has succeeded at his job.

Overall grade - Incomplete but promising


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> B
> 
> His drafts have been very good
> ...


A 'B' sounds fair to me. I agree with all of this. People shouldn't be overlooking how he acquired some very solid young prospects in only a 2 year span, regardless of how you feel about his trades.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, last year I'll gave him an F at the end of the year and I'll stick to that. Very good move in drafting Kirk Hinrich. The trade was probably a C in my book. Not the worst thing to happen, but not much of a good thing IMO either. Pretty much every other aspect of things I didn't like what I saw very much. I've gone over that in detail elsewhere, I won't rehash it.

This year, I again like his draft picks. I didn't like the selection of Gordon very much, but I appear to be well on my way to being wrong about that. I'm very happy that we ended up with Deng, and I credit Pax for picking him when he was there, but I'm not at all sure Pax expected him to be there. In any case, we came out with two guys we should be very happy with. 

I didn't like the Crawford trade, and I think the cap room in 06 plan is half-baked. This team will have a hard time making it to 06 with that cap room in tact. I still believe that.

I think trading for Eric Piatkowski was useless at best and harmful to our cap position at worst.

I still think Nocioni will get his **** together.

And I think we missed our (relative) best opportunity to trade away Curry, a guy we clearly don't want.

I guess if I had to give a grade for this year, it'd be a B, based on the strength of the draft and contingent upon what happens over the remainder of the season. If he pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them, then he gets an A. If they walk away for nothing or we trade for a 32 year old PF who screws up our cap situation (a la Kurt Thomas), he flunks again.

I guess if you average that out, it's a C- or D+. He came in and looked like a guy who had never been a basketball executive before. He's been better this year and made some moves that were legitimately good.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Both of Paxson's drafts have been excellent. Particularly the last one. 

The Crawford trade was necessary. Someone show me a better move he had at his disposal that still ships out Crawford and I'll rethink my position. I'm tickled pink that Crawford is not on the team.

The Rose trade also necessary and a solid one considering what AD had brought to the team. I consider AD to be one of the more underrated players on the team in the big picture of what he provides.

Not to mention that both of those "big" trades were geared towards the 2006 capspace. Something I consider an asset in itself. Particularly since the players cast aside to obtain that capspace were players (not Donyell) that I found repulsive to the concept of winning basketball. Though I realize others consider capspace fool's gold given Krause's late failures in the free agent market, which is a fair argument.

Buying out E-Rob? Necessary. 

Pip over Posey (assuming Posey would have come) was a poor move. No question. Paxson's one indisputable failure.

Skiles? I've discussed him enough this week in other threads.

Chapu? An inconsistent 6th man but I like his future and think he will pan out quite nicely for the price.

I'll just say it. Before Paxson began purging the team and coming forward stating his vision for how to rebuild the team, I had already decided that this is what needed to be done. He is doing what I hoped he would do, and so far has done a damn fine job doing it.

The team we have now going forward is far superior to the slop paraded out the last few seasons in virtually EVERY aspect of the game - including the win column.

Grade - B and climbing. He's not done.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Grade our GM.*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 2002-03 2004-05
> ...


Our average age isn't younger, but the average age per minute played definatly is.

Yes, we could have resigned Curry and Chandler if we had kept Jamal. However, why would we committ long term dollars and be over the cap to a team that is 10 games under 500. Trading away Jamal gave us the flexibility to resign them in the sense that we can now afford to if we underachieve again this year (in a value sense, not a profit sense)

Curry may get a near max deal, but I doubt Tyson does. If we assume Curry at 9-10mil per year starting and Chandler at 7-8mil per year starting, we should have about $32mil in '06.

We would still have
Curry
Chandler
Deng
Gordon
Hinrich
Nocioni

We could go after a top FA and surround the rest of the team with role players, or we could go after a couple of tier 3 type players (or those with breakout potential). Either way, our core will have a lot of experience together and they can fill in as role players or starters.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder,

From looking at the ages and who's playing what kind of minutes, it looks to me like the age per minute is very close to the same between both rosters.

While it may seem like we're playing a young lineup a lot of minutes now, we were then, too:

Curry, Chandler, JWill, Crawford, Hassell, and Fizer were 6 guys who got heavy minutes and who were younger than our core guys are now, except for Deng.

It's not as obvious as you make it out to be.

Cheers


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

compared to other GMs, A.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

A, just to even out those ridiculous F and Ds. Of course they are entitled to theri opinion but IMO anybody who gives out anything but C or better are the ones who will bash him no matter what.

Considering what he had done in short 2 years, I am excited to see what this team will look like in another 2 years. All positive to me.

So in earnest, I gave him B for the last 2 year.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Rhyder,
> 
> From looking at the ages and who's playing what kind of minutes, it looks to me like the age per minute is very close to the same between both rosters.
> ...


We had Rose (30) and Marshall (29) playing significant minutes then too. We only have one player over 25, Davis, playing significant minutes now.

Our talent has definately gotten younger. We have no talent over the age of 25. 2 years ago, we had talent in Rose and Marshall coupled with the other players you mentioned.

Yes, it probably is a lot closer than I was leading to, but our current guys definately have a lot less NBA experience than our main contributers then.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'll give Pax a B

The drafts have been a solid A. All his first round picks look really good, and Duhon was a solid 2nd round pick. We might still get something out of Austin and Smith, and I think he was smart to retain their rights when we didn't have space for them. Losing Bonner is the only thing I think he's done wrong in drafting, but that's hindsight as I thought Bonner would be a stiff at the time.

Trades - C+ I was on the Trade Rose bandwagon fairly early on and was glad Pax did it. He had to go to in order to take the training wheels off the younger players, among other things. But that trade was a slight net negative because we lost Marshall and didn't replace any of the scoring - that led to some pretty brutal offensive performances and NBDL players taking too many shots. the Crawford trade is a wash to me at this point, and could turn into a positive down the road if we're able to turn the flexibility into something that fits the team. I wish Crawford well, but don't lose any sleep over losing him, especially with Gordon stepping up already. I liked that Pax traded next year's pick for Deng. He's 19, so basically we took next year's pick this year and Deng's getting a head start on his NBA career.

Other: eh, he's a little too forthcoming with the media at times. He might give away his hand a bit in this sense. But I tend to like the message he wants to send and think it'll translate into wins sooner than the naysayers want to think. We'll see.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> We had Rose (30) and Marshall (29) playing significant minutes then too. We only have one player over 25, Davis, playing significant minutes now.
> ...


It's a LOT closer.

You're right that we had 1 more veteran player who got minutes, but it was a much younger Curry and Chandler those guys had to make up for. 

This team does have Pike getting 13 minutes/game, Harrington getting 16, and AD getting 24. Those guys are older than anyone we had in those days.

It evens out almost completely, as the average age indicates.


----------



## Lets_Play_2 (Jan 22, 2004)

Let's see....

+ = Trade Rose/Marshall
++ = Get AD back in trade
++ = Draft Hinrich
++ = Draft Gordon
+++ = Draft Deng (he may not be ROY, but he could be the best Bull's 2004 draft pick).
+ = Draft Duhon
+ = Get Pippen back (had a lot of benefits in doing that which most don't see). Expensive - yes, but it closed any outstanding wounds from the past, & also opened up doors to MJ. And that is important for the Bulls organization.
++ = Got rid of the Eddie Robinson cancer.
++ = Organizational control. Everyone now has a pretty good idea of where JP is going - It's time for the young players to develop & play as a team, & he's committed to that for at least the next 2+ years, unless somebody knocks his socks off with an offer.
++ = Cap management. Yes, when we sign both EC & TC to new Contracts, it's likely we'll end up being over the cap. But at least we won't be *starting* the process at/over the cap limit.
-- = Moved JC to NY Knicks. Didn't like that move, but hey, Craw is in for the $$$'s, so he's got them now, & we'll see how he does.
--- = Scott Skiles as coach. 
--- = Bulls marketing. God, is that sad!

I'll say a C+, but with both the potential & flexability to move upward. But, that depends on JP's ability to sell JR on new contracts for both EC & TC (I happen to think it's going to be a much easier sell than most of you think).


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I don't know how your system exactly works, Let's_. But you just gave Paxon 18 + and 8 - and yet grade him C+. Hmm...


----------



## Lets_Play_2 (Jan 22, 2004)

Lgtwins:

I think some of my items listed are still works in progress, but I personally think JP is not only ahead of the game, but he's got a design for where he wants the Bulls to go, and even more importantly, he's made sure he's got a foundation put down which allows him to have the ceiling to get there.

So, C+ for a "work in progress" (I should add an 'up arrow' after the grade).

But let's realize something, many of the other GM's have either topped out their teams or are seriously in need of a miracle. The Bulls are not in that type of situation.


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lets_Play_2</b>!
> Let's see....
> ++ = Draft Gordon
> +++ = Draft Deng (he may not be ROY, but he could be the best Bull's 2004 draft pick).


Do no-brainer moves really deserve such high praise? Deng was Phoenix's failure rather than Chicago's triumph.



> + = Get Pippen back (had a lot of benefits in doing that which most don't see). Expensive - yes, but it closed any outstanding wounds from the past, & also opened up doors to MJ. And that is important for the Bulls organization.


Pip was my favorite player, but signing him was an awful move.



> ++ = Got rid of the Eddie Robinson cancer.


But his salary is still counting toward the cap.



> ++ = Cap management. Yes, when we sign both EC & TC to new Contracts, it's likely we'll end up being over the cap. But at least we won't be *starting* the process at/over the cap limit.


Paxson could use the Larry Bird exception to resign Curry & Chandler no matter what the cap situation looked like. He had no cap space to go after Kobe and won't have any to pursue Ray Allen or Michael Redd. 

Paxson gets a C- from me.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

for no apparent reason (other than proximity), i've chosen Ice Nine's response to debate.


> Originally posted by <b>Ice Nine</b>!
> Paxson could use the Larry Bird exception to resign Curry & Chandler no matter what the cap situation looked like.


partially true. however, since it appears Pax is working under similar financial restrictions as those which have hamstrung his owner's baseball team, he did what was necessary to put the team in a position to be able to resign both EC and TC, if their play merits it, and maintain the ownership-imposed budget.


> He had no cap space to go after Kobe


...who wasn't likely to use us for anything more than the same leverage he used the Clips for...


> and won't have any to pursue Ray Allen or Michael Redd.


...the former of whom will be a 31-year-old SG likely to be looking for another 6-7 year deal, and the latter of whom is likely a foregone conclusion to be a Cavalier next season. therefore, this matters because...? 


> Paxson gets a C- from me.


you're entitled to your opinion. 

the Rose trade was a positive, not only because he was clearly the wrong player to be the focal point of this team, but to find out if JC was a player around whom Pax wanted to build.

when he wasn't, the JC trade made sense, because the Knicks' GM wanted to pay him a LOT more than (JMSO) he's worth...plus, we got a passel of expiring deals to boot, which put us in the financial position to keep TC and EC if desired. (whether or not such budgetary restrictions _should[/] be imposed in the first place is entirely another debate.)

i can't argue with his draft picks, though like MikeDC, i wasn't in the Ben Gordon camp early on. i may well be wrong on BG as well.

DB: you're right, of course; we shouldn't want anything less than an A-grade GM. however, i'll take Pax right now over, say, Scott Layden. _


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Pax got rid of players that put up stats but gave the team nothing in the win column. Our attitude stunk. Our defense was awful. The effort and motivation was non-existent. We may have a similar record to last year, but does anyone really feel the same way about this team? Doesn't their seem to be promise and hope, a good feeling for the future, compared to any of the past years? Maybe it's because now we play defense? Maybe it's because this team now seems to have a bit of attitude and belief, along with the ability to shake off difficult losses and bounce back? Notice how we are not getting blown away anymore?

The biggest thing that needed to change has changed. These guys now think they can win and play hard almost all of the time. This was the one most important thing that needed to happen, and Pax has done that.

The Crawford thing was a big positive. 55 million for him? no way do we commit that cap space. Let's see what we can do in free agency the next few years, but people may actually think of coming here because we no longer have the negativity associated with Krause and a bunch of whining babies destined to lose.

I give Pax a B+ for changing the attitude and work ethic on this team in such a short time. The future is bright for the first time since MJ. Pax is a winner, and as time goes on the Bulls will be as well.

Go Pax!!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> We may have a similar record to last year, but does anyone really feel the same way about this team?


Great post. For some reason the sacrifice of some marginal individual talent appears to be far more important to a lot of fans around here than the installation of defense and winner's mentality you describe. Mind-boggling. 

But I wanted to point something out about the record compared to last years team.

After 27 games last year, the Bulls were 7-20. This year they are 10-17 and are 8-4 in their last 12 games. 

At the end of January the Bulls will have played 42 games (15 more games). Last season at the 42 game mark the Bulls were 12-30. Is there anyone here who thinks at the end of the next 15 games the Bulls will be anywhere near that mark? 

Given that, how can fans give him a D or even a C- and expect to be taken seriously? No credibility. Particularly given the upswing in wins coupled with the extreme youth of the team.

But those fans should keep shouting at the wind, by all means. The more the team wins the harder it is to hear their bleatings.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Great post. For some reason the sacrifice of some marginal individual talent appears to be far more important to a lot of fans around here than the installation of defense and winner's mentality you describe. Mind-boggling.
> ...


Why don't you address those guys and the points they raise instead of simply insulting them as a group. Talk about bleatings that aren't worth listening to, yeash. If you just want to talk past people and give people ****, then again, what's the point.

My point is that I don't think getting rid of Crawford and installing "defense and a winner's mentality" were mutually exclusive projects.

Crawford played hard, but not particularly well on defense and not smart. But he's a young player. The mentality would be changing regardless by adding players like Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni. You add guys like that and you're going to get tougher. You make net additions of talent and everyone looks better.

We'd probably be a couple games ahead of where we are now. In turn, as a longer term proposition, that means it makes it easier to trade off the guys who don't fit in the longer-run plan.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ice Nine</b>!
> 
> Do no-brainer moves really deserve such high praise? Deng was Phoenix's failure rather than Chicago's triumph.
> 
> ...


I think some of that's a little unfair, especially the draft picks. I would hardly call his drafts no-brainers. Pax could have EASILY become infatuated with Shaun Livingston and taken him #3 overall. I highly doubt Livingston has the immediate impact that Gordon has had for us. And swindling the #7 pick from Phoenix was huge, especially considering that Deng was there for the taking. IMO, Deng is better than anyone we get from the upcoming draft, which makes it very worthwhile. Hypothetically, the Bulls could just have easily have Livingston instead of Gordon, with yet another raw rookie coming in next season. This team would have a very different outlook this season. 

The E-Rob buyout was also under-appreciated. That signing was Krause's blunder, but at least Paxson saves the team a couple million while ridding the team of his negative presence. Instead of $14 million against the Bulls cap, it's more like $10 million now. 

Anything less than a B- isn't right.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Why don't you address those guys and the points they raise instead of simply insulting them as a group. Talk about bleatings that aren't worth listening to, yeash. If you just want to talk past people and give people ****, then again, what's the point.
> ...


Well, I do think they are mutually exclusive. Crawford doesn't play defense for the Knicks and his shot selection is still atrocious. Not to mention that on the Bulls, he would have gotten benched for that type of play and been a disruptive presence as a result. Right now this team is on the same page - a rarity in the NBA.

And I fail to to see the logic in your last paragraph. Keeping players who don't fit into the "longer-run plans" makes it easier to trade them in the future? :laugh: Thats classic.

And as to who I was referring to, I pretty clearly said guys who gave Pax a D or even an C -. Not to hard to discern who that is. You, for example, are one of them. But I suspect you know that or you wouldn't have responded.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I do think they are mutually exclusive. Crawford doesn't play defense for the Knicks and his shot selection is still atrocious. Not to mention that on the Bulls, he would have gotten benched for that type of play and been a disruptive presence as a result. Right now this team is on the same page - a rarity in the NBA.
> ...


Its more than reasonable to think Crawford may not have been a good fit on this PaxSkiles team but to criticize Paxson for not getting anything of value in return for him.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> Pax got rid of players that put up stats but gave the team nothing in the win column. Our attitude stunk. Our defense was awful. The effort and motivation was non-existent. We may have a similar record to last year, but does anyone really feel the same way about this team? Doesn't their seem to be promise and hope, a good feeling for the future, compared to any of the past years? Maybe it's because now we play defense? Maybe it's because this team now seems to have a bit of attitude and belief, along with the ability to shake off difficult losses and bounce back? Notice how we are not getting blown away anymore?
> 
> The biggest thing that needed to change has changed. These guys now think they can win and play hard almost all of the time. This was the one most important thing that needed to happen, and Pax has done that.
> ...


This is the post of the thread! Right on the money.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its more than reasonable to think Crawford may not have been a good fit on this PaxSkiles team but to criticize Paxson for not getting anything of value in return for him.


So I assume you have knowledge of alternate plans he had at his disposal that still would have sent Crawford out of town? 

And he did get something of value in the NBA. Expiring contracts. Now, its fair to debate whether that value will be realized. But until Pax gets a chance to do something with that capspace, the criticism is a little premature. 

It was a forward looking move. Why don't we wait until the "forward" is the present before condemning him for it? I'd like you to answer my first question of you can, because I've posted it before in other threads and no one has ever responded.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> So I assume you have knowledge of alternate plans he had at his disposal that still would have sent Crawford out of town?
> ...


The fact that he waited until the off-season is my main complaint. Everyone knew what Crawford was about. It was clear that PaxSkiles were unable to get much out of him. He's not their type of guy (he's a key contributor on a winning team now, so better for him as well).

Expiring contracts are OK... but he didn't get enough Cap Space to make much of a difference given the Chandler/Curry situation. And then he have some of it back with his foolish Pike trade.

No... I don't know all the inner workings of the Bulls organization... and neither to you I assume.

Turning an asset into NOTHING (post pike trade) is a poor job. 

That being said… I’m glad Paxson didn’t blow the #3 and #7 picks in the draft this season and I’m glad he created an environment where Chandler and Curry could be productive again… like they were before Skiles and he were hired. He’s doing a good job of getting the team back to the state it was before he started. I hope the trendline can start moving up again... like it was before he started.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

"like it was before he started."

Was this team playing Defense before he started? No. And the fact that they are, is a direct reflection on Pax and Skiles. Defense is the key to good basketball. It's why we can still win games, even though we had 20 turnovers. 

The Crawford trade? PLEASE. Give me a damn break. Nobody else was interested in him. This is why we couldn't do a damn deal earlier.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> So I assume you have knowledge of alternate plans he had at his disposal that still would have sent Crawford out of town?
> ...


From what I recall, the only offers made for Crawford before last season's trade deadline (not including Chad Ford) were a 2nd round pick from Milwaukee and Othella Harrrington + filler (Frank Williams?) from the Knicks. 

I'd say Pax did a better job by waiting. I was in full agreement with the Crawford + JYD for all of NY's expiring contracts, but I absolutely hated the Deke for Pike trade that followed. I think he got the best value he could out of Crawford in terms of a trade.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The fact that he waited until the off-season is my main complaint. Everyone knew what Crawford was about. It was clear that PaxSkiles were unable to get much out of him. He's not their type of guy (he's a key contributor on a winning team now, so better for him as well).
> ...


Thats what I thought. In other words, you don't have the first clue what Crawford's value was league wide. 

And Pike didn't hurt the capspace. I would assume that has been addressed on this board, so it surprises me you would bring it up. The capspace move was for 2006 when AD, E-Rob and Pike all come off the books. 

Summer of 2006 is when the space comes into play, not this summer. With or without Pike. And as has been reported a multitude of times by KC Johnson and Mike McGraw, even if the Bulls pay Curry and Chandler each $10 million per (which they won't) Pax will still have near max capspace in 2006. 

So like I said, why don't you wait and see what he does with it before trashing him for obtaining it in the first place? Especially when there is no indication whatsoever that Paxson had better alternative options for getting rid of Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> "like it was before he started."
> 
> Was this team playing Defense before he started? No. And the fact that they are, is a direct reflection on Pax and Skiles. Defense is the key to good basketball. It's why we can still win games, even though we had 20 turnovers.
> ...


Obviously at least the Knicks were interested in him, yes?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously at least the Knicks were interested in him, yes?


True. So what deal could Paxson have gotten from the Knicks that would have been better than what he got?

Nothing, It took him 6 weeks to beat Isiah down to the point where he wouldn't include cap-destroying deals like Moochie and Shandon Anderson.

He got the best he could get for a guy that didn't draw much interest around the league. Based on the information we fans have, this point isn't subject to debate - only to speculation. And speculation is not a valid basis upon which to evaluate a man's actions.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats what I thought. In other words, you don't have the first clue what Crawford's value was league wide.
> ...


And just like I thought... you don't have much of a clue either.

I know there was at least one team willing to sign him to a long-term deal.

Ah yes... the grand free agent summer of 2006. It will be interesting to see who will come here and what the structure of the payroll will be post Curry/Chander, the new CBA rules, the new cap # and if Crawford’s approx 7 mil that summer would even make a difference.. Two years of nothing for a whisper of hope. You're right... that was a *great* trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> True. So what deal could Paxson have gotten from the Knicks that would have been better than what he got?
> ...


How do you know how much interest he drew around the league?

You're speculating as well.

An asset turned to a fairy tale. That's not speculation.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And just like I thought... you don't have much of a clue either.
> ...


One other team willing to sign him to a long term deal? Please dont say Kiki, because he pretty much laughed at the thought of that. Who was it? I dont recall ANY. Thomas was the only goofball willing to pay that kind of money.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you know how much interest he drew around the league?
> ...


And what are YOU doing? The same damn thing. At least Ron Cey is going by what the reports and articles were saying about the situation.

Your going by some sort of fantasy land ideas.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> One other team willing to sign him to a long term deal? Please dont say Kiki, because he pretty much laughed at the thought of that. Who was it? I dont recall ANY. Thomas was the only goofball willing to pay that kind of money.


The really funny thing is that he not being paid much money at all. Just a smidge over the MLE.

The Uncle Jerry mentality is everywhere I guess.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The really funny thing is that he not being paid much money at all. Just a smidge over the MLE.
> ...


Well here's a question for you. I am assuming you think Paxson lowballed Jamal, right? Well then, if he did and Jamal is this amazing talent, why didn't another team come forth and up the ante just a little bit? Jamal was a restricted free agent, right? Why didn't we even see teams making moves to free up a tiny littl bit of capspace to sign Jamal?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> One other team willing to sign him to a long term deal? Please dont say Kiki, because he pretty much laughed at the thought of that. Who was it? I dont recall ANY. Thomas was the only goofball willing to pay that kind of money.


Given that Paxson seemingly waited until the last minute to do anything, and that they were not willing to pay him barely over the MLE, and given that the type of contract that Crawford had (teams afraid to make offers given that Bulls could match) all seemingly played a part.

Our #7 pick in the draft (trade) who is now a starting, key contributor SG on a playoff-bound team was liquidated into NOTHING. This is unacceptable. 

But... the Bulls are now on pace to win as many games as before Paxson started... so I guess he's a success.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Given that Paxson seemingly waited until the last minute to do anything, and that they were not willing to pay him barely over the MLE, and given that the type of contract that Crawford had (teams afraid to make offers given that Bulls could match) all seemingly played a part.
> ...


Last minute? Paxson was talking to Jamal's agent the season before! Other teams KNEW we didn't want to pay Jamal much money, they knew that since LAST SEASON. They had a TON of time to make moves.

Could it be that nobody else really wanted him?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

"But... the Bulls are now on pace to win as many games as before Paxson started... so I guess he's a success."

In the past 6 years or so, have we won on that circus trip?

How about a 5 game winning streak?

Or do you recall us blowing out winning teams?

Beating last years champs on the road, IN THEIR OWN HOUSE?

If you seriously think this is the same team as before, your insane.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Well here's a question for you. I am assuming you think Paxson lowballed Jamal, right? Well then, if he did and Jamal is this amazing talent, why didn't another team come forth and up the ante just a little bit? Jamal was a restricted free agent, right? Why didn't we even see teams making moves to free up a tiny littl bit of capspace to sign Jamal?


The NBA market priced Jamal at what he's currently making.

How many suitors, what was going on behind the scenes, etc is not really revelavant, especially since you and I are lacking tons of needed information.

That is how much he is worth. 

It appears that Darius Miles and Stromile Swift were victims of the same phenomena. 

I don't remember using words like "amazing talent".... just asset.

What a waste for the Bulls to lose an asset for nothing.

Oh yah... we get magic 2006 cap space superstar free agent beans, I forgot.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The NBA market priced Jamal at what he's currently making.
> ...


Shouldn't you wait until 2006 to see what becomes of Paxson's moves, before you go ripping them?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> "But... the Bulls are now on pace to win as many games as before Paxson started... so I guess he's a success."
> 
> In the past 6 years or so, have we won on that circus trip?
> ...


There have been some good times this season.

Also some bad ones.

At the end of the day, right now, we're on pace to win as many games as 2003. 

No argument there, right?

This team goes as far as the towers take them, IMO. 

Same as it ever was.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Oh btw? Darius Miles sucks and Swift is over-rated.

That's probably what they have in common with Jamal.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

"At the end of the day, right now, we're on pace to win as many games as 2003. 

No argument there, right?"

WRONG!

BIG TIME ARGUMENT!

We're 8 of our last 12. If we continue that pace, how in the hell are we going to end up like last season?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I do think they are mutually exclusive. Crawford doesn't play defense for the Knicks and his shot selection is still atrocious. Not to mention that on the Bulls, he would have gotten benched for that type of play and been a disruptive presence as a result. Right now this team is on the same page - a rarity in the NBA.
> ...


It's really very simple to understand logic. You might not expect a guy to be here in five years, but that doesn't mean you drop him for nothing in return, especially when he fills a necessary role in the short-run. It doesn't make them "easier to trade", it makes it possible to get more assets. As of now, we have no way to trade someone of Crawford's value. If Crawford were here, as we started to improve, we'd be able to trade him away and get someone that helps. As it stands, we can't very easily, for example, trade "cap space in 2006" for a player that's going to help us this year.



> And as to who I was referring to, I pretty clearly said guys who gave Pax a D or even an C -. Not to hard to discern who that is. You, for example, are one of them. But I suspect you know that or you wouldn't have responded.


It's not who you referred to, it's *how* you referred to them. If you can't talk to someone without continually making such derogatory remarks, it's pretty lame. Even though I disagree with you, you don't see me belittling your views in that way. 

I guess that's a really simple concept to me too. Disagree with someone without making it personal. You don't hear me going on about the mindless bleatings of a kool-aid swilling fool, because that lowers the level of discussion. And it's pointless. You're a smart guy and the other folks here are smart guys too. So why not treat them with a modicrum of respect? That's what (generally) has made this place a good place to talk about basketball, and quite distinct from the other places where the kind of "talking down" to other people is par for the course.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

It's pretty much become clear to me that the only way Skiles and Pax will get ANY amount of respect from some of you, is if we make the playoffs. And even then, I bet some of you will still refuse to eat crow.

I swear, some of you are as stubborn as I am!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> "At the end of the day, right now, we're on pace to win as many games as 2003.
> 
> No argument there, right?"
> ...


Ah yes... but we are only 1 out of our last 3.

The Bulls are doomed!    

We're 0 out of our last 1 on the road! We're not going to win another road game all year!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> It's pretty much become clear to me that the only way Skiles and Pax will get ANY amount of respect from some of you, is if we make the playoffs. And even then, I bet some of you will still refuse to eat crow.
> 
> I swear, some of you are as stubborn as I am!




I said that Paxson is OK.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Ah yes... but we are only 1 out of our last 3.
> ...


Tell you what. 

I'll leave it for you to do. But go ahead and check out what we were scoring per game last year, and what our opponents were. Compare that to this year, and tell me this is the same team. Also factor in our opponents FG% as well.

This team is a complete 180 degrees from last season. Complete. Come on man! Are you going to tell me your not even the least bit more excited about this team compared to last seasons? Or the past 6 seasons for that matter?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Tell you what.
> ...


Hell yah we're better than last year.

Last year we had Fat Curry, hurt Chandler, anemic/rookie Hinrich, Crawford, a wasted MLE slot and the NBDL all star team.

How in the name of God could we be worse?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you know how much interest he drew around the league?
> ...


No, I'm not speculating. There is no information that there was a better deal out there for Crawford. Thats just the truth.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Hell yah we're better than last year.
> ...


So, what? You were expecting Paxson to make Chicken soup out of chicken Shiznit? You have to have capspace and "assets" to make moves. We had neither.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> No, I'm not speculating. There is no information that there was a better deal out there for Crawford. Thats just the truth.


You're putting a lot of faith in a magic free agent summer.

Just like Krause.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You're putting a lot of faith in a magic free agent summer.
> ...


I'm not putting any faith in it. Where is the post in which I said Pax would find a better fit for the team than Crawford in 2006? I didn't. I'm waiting to evaluate that aspect of the trade. But considering the team is improving dramatically in the meantime, it makes that wait all that much easier to feel good about.

Like Shinky, I simply asked why you aren't willing to wait and see if its "fantasy" as you describe it, or real value? 

That seams like the reasonable approach to take. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You're putting a lot of faith in a magic free agent summer.
> ...


Then again, when was the last time you seen ELITE players and top ranked coaches praising this team?

Kobe did, Francis just did etc etc...The face of this team has changed. Players will want to come here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not putting any faith in it. Where is the post in which I said Pax would find a better fit for the team than Crawford in 2006? I didn't. I'm waiting to evaluate that aspect of the trade. But considering the team is improving dramatically in the meantime, it makes that wait all that much easier to feel good about.
> ...


Perhaps Paxson’s magic free agent summer will go better than Krause's.

I don't see any reason to think it will.

So, no, given that, I think its reasonable to rip him. I think its a pipe dream.

EDIT: Then again... I've been following this CRAPfest team for a long time. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Then again, when was the last time you seen ELITE players and top ranked coaches praising this team?
> ...



I hope you are right. That an ELITE player will chose to come here.

This is the same mindset Jerry Krause had.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> So I assume you have knowledge of alternate plans he had at his disposal that still would have sent Crawford out of town?
> ...


You certainly aren't waiting until the forward is present to laud him for it- you said only a few posts back that you thought it was a good move.

And that's fine, but I don't understand why it's ok to praise in advance but not ok to condemn in advance.

The trade Jamal/cap space in 06 plan reduces the flexibility this team has in any number of ways.

* Jamal, while not the second coming some think he is, remains a tradeable player under his new deal.

* He would have helped and filled a role in the short-run, one that's not being filled now. It seems like lots of folks have forgotten how dangerously close to imploding this team looked at the start of the season. That was a huge risk we took, and I continute to think the safer, smarter course was to bring him back because he would have been another player on the court who could score for us, and we seriously needed that. Still do on many nights. And he's an ok defender, which is better than what we have.

* Having to plan around cap space in 06 often as much a hindrance as a help, because it seriously limits what other moves can be made. We seem pretty intent on wanting to move Curry, but the wrong move would screw up the cap space. We're not going to be able to do much on the free agent market this summer, even though we've got a couple of holes we need to fill (tall guard, backup PF) even if we re-sign Curry and Chandler. We're limited to short-contract, limited players to take back in trade, and not taking back any impending FAs that might screw things up.

In short, there are some limitations based on our need to "hold on" to the cap space. And while we have to live with those limitations, the cap space isn't going to help us on the court.

* Topping it off, there's quite a bit of uncertainty over just how much money we'll be able to bring to bear in 2006 and offer to some other team. More likely than not, it'll be more than the MLE by a couple million, but less than the max by a couple million. Of course, we have no idea how the CBA will look after the next negotiation, so it could all go out the window anyway.

* Given those limits, I think we'd be better off than we will be by having help on the court now (Jamal), and then trading him plus one or both of Curry and Chandler down the road, and just making smart signings with the MLE. 

* It also wouldn't hurt to pick up draft picks in one of those trades, if we could, because that's the one area Paxson's shown he's pretty adept at so far, and it's the area where we don't have any asset to use this summer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> It's really very simple to understand logic. You might not expect a guy to be here in five years, but that doesn't mean you drop him for nothing in return, especially when he fills a necessary role in the short-run. It doesn't make them "easier to trade", it makes it possible to get more assets. As of now, we have no way to trade someone of Crawford's value. If Crawford were here, as we started to improve, we'd be able to trade him away and get someone that helps. As it stands, we can't very easily, for example, trade "cap space in 2006" for a player that's going to help us this year.
> ...


I'll ignore your finger wagging about "talking down". I've been reading this board long enough to know that you are one of the masters at it. Putting a smiley face after a post implying the ignorance of another does not make it any more friendly. But thats your style. Mine is a little more direct. Sorry to upset the balance. 

Regarding Crawford: You don't get it. I believe that his presence on this team, this year (like E-Rob and Rose, but for slightly different reasons) would have been detrimental to the complete overhaul in style of play and mentality that Skiles and Paxson are trying to achieve, and frankly are achieving. 

A chucker like Crawford who doesn't play defense (particularly one who would consider himself a key part of the offense) could effectively destroy what Paxson is doing. Particularly when the inevitable benching of Crawford came. Followed promptly by the equally inevitable "I don't know why I got benched. Ypu gotta ask coach. But I'm used to it by now" - even if the Bulls had one the game. 

Thats how I see it. So regardless of whether Crawford could have been dealt later isn't the question. It was time for him to go now. And he went. And I'm happy about it.

Edit: And as to why my favorable evaluation isn't premature, I think the above should answer that. I'm happy enough that Pax didn't drop $55 mil on Crawford. Everything else is just gravy.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are right. That an ELITE player will chose to come here.


Ahhh, but I really didn't say an "elite" player will want to come here. I just said that we are starting to hear a good amount of praise in circles that we never did before.

With that said, I could see an elite player considering this team. Especially if we scratch for the playoffs.

But really? Do we honestly need an "elite" player? I am not so sure. I could be really happy with a couple of solid vets to add to this squad that we currently have. Maybe a quality bigger SG and a backup center or power forward.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> But really? Do we honestly need an "elite" player? I am not so sure. I could be really happy with a couple of solid vets to add to this squad that we currently have. Maybe a quality bigger SG and a backup center or power forward.


Me too, Shinky. Me too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Ahhh, but I really didn't say an "elite" player will want to come here. I just said that we are starting to hear a good amount of praise in circles that we never did before.
> ...


If we're not getting an "elite" player...then what the hell good is all the cap space? We can get those average types of players with the MLE.

I agree that we have a solid young core. I'd hope so with a #2, #3, #4 and two #7 draft picks. 

At the end of the day... we're just having a "is crawford worthless" argument here... one that i'm tired of having.

It will be interesting to watch him on the Knicks in the playoffs.... that I know.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to watch him on the Knicks in the playoffs.... that I know.


 I suspect that in the past someone has pointed out to you that the Knicks made the playoffs last season, right?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Great post. For some reason the sacrifice of some marginal individual talent appears to be far more important to a lot of fans around here than the installation of defense and winner's mentality you describe. Mind-boggling.
> ...


what you fail to realize , is that when you compare last year to this year you are comparing pax to himself. 

he was the GM last season too, that team was under his watch , the previous year it wasn't and THAT team was every bit as good as this one if not better , it too after 27 games was 10-17 . so where is the progress ?

after 2 years dont you think a young team (avg. age 24 and change at the time 2 years ago today) should be better with a competent Gm at the helm?

most people would say yes.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

"he was the GM last season too, that team was under his watch , the previous year it wasn't and THAT team was every bit as good as this one if not better "

That team was nowhere NEAR what we have right now. NOWERE!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> "he was the GM last season too, that team was under his watch , the previous year it wasn't and THAT team was every bit as good as this one if not better "
> 
> That team was nowhere NEAR what we have right now. NOWERE!


that team (2002-03 ) had the same record (10-17) looks pretty close to me , unless you know something other than wins that determines how good a team is .


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I suspect that in the past someone has pointed out to you that the Knicks made the playoffs last season, right?



I figured you would have to be asleep at the wheel to ignore that.

Of course, it sounds like you're not planning on waking up until the summer of 2006.

See you then.

Paxson will still have a losing record.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> what you fail to realize , is that when you compare last year to this year you are comparing pax to himself.
> ...


That was a deconstruction year. I fully expected them to digress. But the team 3 seasons ago featured guys like Rose, Marshall and Crawford in prominent roles. Guys who were far older than the core players we have now. That team didn't feature 4 rookies prominantly in the rotation.

That team feature one rookie - one who had a career ending injury further detracting from Paxson's ability to rebuild. 

Phoenix and Denver both took huge steps back before getting better. This is what Pax is doing. We all know it. 

And as to "most people", I think you confuse "most people" with most people in here, a place that in my experience doesn't even remotely reflect the mood and belief of most Bulls fans.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice dodge. You don't really respond directly very often when the initiating statement detracts from your position.

Broken record.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. You don't really respond directly very often when the initiating statement detracts from your position.
> ...


well... all you are really saying is "wait until 2006 and accept the losing until then."

then you support building all this cap space for a non-elite player to come here.... so we don't even need the cap space.

and you don't like jamal crawford... that's clear.

weak.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> that team (2002-03 ) had the same record (10-17) looks pretty close to me , unless you know something other than wins that determines how good a team is .


oh. So I guess 8 of our last 12 doesn't matter? The only way we wont beat that old record is if we totally tank from here on out. We keep playing the way we are, and we WILL hit the playoffs.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> well... all you are really saying is "wait until 2006 and accept the losing until then."
> ...


I'm sorry? Is this season over with?

Careful about what you post now, because I will be rehashing this and serving it up to you on a platter.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sorry? Is this season over with?
> ...


I'll be happy if the Bulls end up with a winning record.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll be happy if the Bulls end up with a winning record.


Ahhh! The convinient way out for a pessimist.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. You don't really respond directly very often when the initiating statement detracts from your position.
> ...


I don't have time to do this.

Maybe you can help me.

Currently, the Knicks are bound for the playoffs (and they were pre-injury).

Crawford is currently

#2 in minutes played per game,
#2 in points per game,
#2 in assists per game,
#1 in steals per game,

on the Knicks.

Can you go back and look over the last 10 years of NBA playoff teams and make a list of players that are #1-#2 in those four stats?

I'd like to see that list of players and then read the explanation as to how the players on that list are not worth anything.

Or would Jamal *still* be the exception?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Ahhh! The convinient way out for a pessimist.


And if they don't end up with a winning record, what does that make you?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> oh. So I guess 8 of our last 12 doesn't matter? The only way we wont beat that old record is if we totally tank from here on out. We keep playing the way we are, and we WILL hit the playoffs.


after 27 games in 2002-03 the bulls could say they won 6 of their last 8, unfortunately the season isn't judged by how a stretch of games in dec. goes but by all 82.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your finger wagging about "talking down". I've been reading this board long enough to know that you are one of the masters at it. Putting a smiley face after a post implying the ignorance of another does not make it any more friendly. But thats your style. Mine is a little more direct. Sorry to upset the balance.


Uh, where did I do that? Maybe you're referring to somewhere like here, where I simply repeated the rude and derogatory words *you* used. I added the smiley's to lighten the tone, let you know I didn't think it was a big deal (that I wasn't all that insulted) and because I thought it made it even more obvious (although I thought it was already very obvious), that I was simply replying with the same sort of derogatory reply you used. Clearly you didn't like it, so I don't think why you're so surprised others didn't like it directed at them. 

I don't see anything really indirect about that. Clearly you didn't like being talked to that way, and I would have thought it pretty obvious *why* you were being talked to that way, since I was simply repeating your own words. 

If you're referring to something else, I don't see where I do that. If you took offense to something I said, I'm sorry. I was probably making a poor attempt at lightening the mood. Barring a couple of people who seem to feel the need to pick fights with me, I don't think I have anything negative to say about anyone here. I mean come on, there's no reason to be all nasty to other folks or start on with all the "you're a master at talking down to people" garbage. We're arguing about a basketball team we all like; I try to be courteous to my fellow fans, even in disagreement, because we're all rooting for the same team. If you, or anyone else has a problem with something I directed at them, feel free to PM me. We'll handle it as courteously or as rudely as you like. 



> Regarding Crawford: You don't get it. I believe that his presence on this team, this year (like E-Rob and Rose, but for slightly different reasons) would have been detrimental to the complete overhaul in style of play and mentality that Skiles and Paxson are trying to achieve, and frankly are achieving.


I get it, I simply don't agree. 



> A chucker like Crawford who doesn't play defense (particularly one who would consider himself a key part of the offense) could effectively destroy what Paxson is doing. Particularly when the inevitable benching of Crawford came. Followed promptly by the equally inevitable "I don't know why I got benched. Ypu gotta ask coach. But I'm used to it by now" - even if the Bulls had one the game.
> 
> Thats how I see it. So regardless of whether Crawford could have been dealt later isn't the question. It was time for him to go now. And he went. And I'm happy about it.
> 
> Edit: And as to why my favorable evaluation isn't premature, I think the above should answer that. I'm happy enough that Pax didn't drop $55 mil on Crawford. Everything else is just gravy.


Fair enough, but I don't see how this team has the horses to compete for a championship a few years down the road. Having an additional guy we could throw into a trade (say in a two-for-one package to get another closer to pair with Gordon) would make all the difference.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> That was a deconstruction year. I fully expected them to digress. But the team 3 seasons ago featured guys like Rose, Marshall and Crawford in prominent roles. Guys who were far older than the core players we have now. That team didn't feature 4 rookies prominantly in the rotation.
> ...


what's a deconstruction year?

i could have sworn paxson predicted and guarenteed playoffs, doesn't sound like someone who planned on a deconstructed season to me, do teams who are "deconstructing" sign 37 year old players to start for them and call them "the final piece"?

if a team has 4 rookies in its rotation , its not a badge of honor , its either an expansion like team , or a GM who doesn't know rookies not named magic johnson dont win in nba.

and i confuse nothing , you could however use a bit clarity in your thoughts., either that or you could send john paxson an email , because you knew something he didn't last season about his team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> That was a deconstruction year. I fully expected them to digress.


But Paxson didn't. Instead of pushing hard to deal Rose in the off-season, he waited and then gave every appearance of making a couple of panic moves when his expectations weren't met. He signed up Pippen and Gill, and he cut Hassell in large part, apparently, because he felt the guy should have the chance to play somewhere, and he wouldn't on a veteran team making a playoff push.

Yeah, Paxson started rebuilding, but he did so after mis-judging the initial situation rather obviously. In doing so, he set things back a bit. If he'd come in and tried cleaning house from the start, we'd be further along than we are and I'd have quite a bit more favorable opinion of Paxson than I do.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> But Paxson didn't. Instead of pushing hard to deal Rose in the off-season, he waited and then gave every appearance of making a couple of panic moves when his expectations weren't met. He signed up Pippen and Gill, and he cut Hassell in large part, apparently, because he felt the guy should have the chance to play somewhere, and he wouldn't on a veteran team making a playoff push.
> 
> Yeah, Paxson started rebuilding, but he did so after mis-judging the initial situation rather obviously. In doing so, he set things back a bit. If he'd come in and tried cleaning house from the start, we'd be further along than we are and I'd have quite a bit more favorable opinion of Paxson than I do.


(Great post as usual Mike)

Paxon's unbeliveable misjudgement of where this team was last year is a major reason that I can't see giving him more then a C or a D. This team is almost exactly where it was last year, and various years before that.... They are in a the middle of a rebuilding mode, depending on young players to reach thier potential. The names are different, but his plan looks almost exactly like that of the guy before him. Hire a coach you can control, then stockpile young draft picks and cap room in the hopes you can convince a star to jump ship and play for you. 

The only difference I see between his plans and Krause's a few years ago is that Krause was fat (but at least his plan was his own...)

Say what you will about the need to "clean house" and get rid of the "cancers" (which is a massive load of BS IMO)... the fact is other alleged "cancers" have yielded FAR more in trades. Look around the league. Other teams have made trades for space and gotten waaaaaaaay more then the rejects, has beens, and never will bes that Pax got.

His trading technique gets a flat "F". If he doesn't like you personally, he'll have you benched and shipped out, regardless of your actual value or production. And don't think other players and GMs around the league don't talk and notice his shortsightedness. They do.

Pax has shown thusfar to be a soild, albeit unspectacular GM who makes safe draft picks and never goes for the home run, meriting nothing more then an average grade given his draft position. Has he wowed anyone by taking an unknown? Kirk and Ben are about the 7th and 3rd best players in thier draft, so how is that anything but average (aka a "C")? 


Overall, It's a C- with a chance to improve. But as we've seen with the Bulls organization, they'll likely be pressure from above to do something impulsive like trade Curry, Chandler and Gordo for Abdur-Rahim and set themselves back 3 or 4 years. 

Some people see it as pessimism, some see it as harsh reality....


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> what's a deconstruction year?
> ...


I see what he's saying by deconstruction year. The Suns from last year, the Nuggets from 2 years ago, and the Bulls last year all were very similar...they all had high hopes going into their season, only to realize that their veteran-oriented teams weren't going anywhere. So the GM's "deconstruct" the team in order to plan for next year. The Suns from last year traded Marbury & Penny away for basically nothing, just cap space; they turned it into Nash and Q. The Nuggets from 2 years ago traded away Van Exel, McDyess, and LaFrentz; they turned it into young prospects and cap space, which became Andre Miller. Both teams turned the corner as a result. The Bulls this year seem to be doing the same thing. Sometimes the best way to make a big leap forward is to first make a small step back. Trading away Rose and Crawford while getting smaller contracts was the first step in that process. Nobody should be complaining right now because the Bulls are getting over the hump.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But Paxson didn't. Instead of pushing hard to deal Rose in the off-season, he waited and then gave every appearance of making a couple of panic moves when his expectations weren't met. He signed up Pippen and Gill, and he cut Hassell in large part, apparently, because he felt the guy should have the chance to play somewhere, and he wouldn't on a veteran team making a playoff push.
> ...


As I said in my previous post, you see at least 1 or 2 teams every year who have high hopes and completely underachieve. Oftentimes, the GM will "deconstruct" by trading the aging/overpaid players for younger/small-contract players in order to make things more flexible for the future. Last year you saw the Suns having high hopes, but ended up one of the worst teams in the Western Conference. So they trade Marbury and Penny by the trade deadline, keep their young studs (Marion and Amare), and use their newly available cap space on good free agents (Nash and Q). The results speak for themselves. It'd be hard for the Bulls to match that sort of progress, but we're seeing the results start to take effect. Like I said before, sometimes the best way to make a big leap forward is taking a small step backward.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> (Great post as usual Mike)
> ...


well argued as always, but I disagree with a couple points. . .

first, i have never been a fan of the gib-cut, but we have to be ready to re-evaluate our stance. from the lakers game on the west coast trip on, this team has shown a resiliency that previous incarnations did not have. the momentum shift on the road, is new and may be attributable to the attitude shift. the jury is out.

secondly, addressing your point about the trade value of "cancers," once a player is branded a problem their value is jack. the two classic examples are rasheed and vince carter. these players have ten times the talent of jalen rose. a.d. and change is all-world when viewed in the context of those brutally lopsided "ship a cancer" moves. while i'll let others argue that we did not get equal value, to say that other franchises have gotten more in return for "cancers" is a stretch. 

last, there is no such thing as a safe draft pick. we have both seen enough college studs fail and highschoolers flourish to know that the recipe for success is not based on experience. likewise, the drafting of ben gordon when the franchise already had a solid young player in hinrich at pg was down right gutsy. the fact that this team cannot finish without gordon on the court validates his selection. paxson deserves notice.

i'm not ready to grade paxson, but his vision deserves, at a minimum, more time before we make a formal judgment.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> As I said in my previous post, you see at least 1 or 2 teams every year who have high hopes and completely underachieve.


Well sure, I just want my team to not be one of them. Certainly it was easy to think everything was gonna come up sunny going into last year, but that doesn't mean that a good GM might have looked at things and decided they wouldn't. 

I actually think Paxson's gut instinct was that they wouldn't, but rather than start rebuilding the team into what he wanted, he spent that summer reinforcing what was there, rather than using his preogative as the new guy to clean house and move in the direction he really wanted to go.



> Oftentimes, the GM will "deconstruct" by trading the aging/overpaid players for younger/small-contract players in order to make things more flexible for the future. Last year you saw the Suns having high hopes, but ended up one of the worst teams in the Western Conference. So they trade Marbury and Penny by the trade deadline, keep their young studs (Marion and Amare), and use their newly available cap space on good free agents (Nash and Q). The results speak for themselves. It'd be hard for the Bulls to match that sort of progress, but we're seeing the results start to take effect. Like I said before, sometimes the best way to make a big leap forward is taking a small step backward.


I don't disagree with that, it's just that it appears to me Pax came in, decided things were basically good and spent time and resources reinforcing that "core". When a new GM comes in, he has the chance to make changes, and our GM largely took ownership of what was there and built upon it. He quickly changed his mind, and perhaps rightly so, but the initial misjudgement appears to have been pretty costly to me.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> If we're not getting an "elite" player...then what the hell good is all the cap space? We can get those average types of players with the MLE.



Do you think Reinsdorf would have signed off on longterms deals for Crawford, Chandler, and Curry while still having E-rob, Antonio, and JYD on his payroll? (And before you say anything about Paxson putting Antonio and JYD there, the cap situation would have been even a little bit worse without the Rose trade) Don't you think he had a little something to do with this trade? Do you not think that there was a discussion where Reinsdorf basically told Pax if they sign Jamal that at least one of Tyson or Eddy would have to be traded b/c Jerry boy is not willling to into luxury tax territory, at least when we're not even in the playoffs. I certainly do and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me. 

Does that make the Bulls cheap? Yeah, maybe. Does that mean we need a new owner? Yeah, maybe. But it certainly doesn't make Paxson look bad for what he did in the circumstances I think is pretty obvious he was given. I would have kept the big men as well, as I'm sure would have the majority of GMs in the league. And that doesn't mean I'm reflecting all responsibility off of Pax for the Jamal trade. I think it's pretty clear he didn't want him around longterm and did not like his style of play. But if he had his way and money was of no issue, I think he would have done what MikeDC is getting at, signed him (not at 55 million, probably cut off negotiations with NY and settled on a 6 year deal) and traded him in a year or two for a player who can contribute more than what Othella and Pike are doing. I think you can sense that out of him when he talked about that trade "not being ideal" for the Bulls when the trade was done. 

That's actually the kind of trade I was pushing for at first, but I really don't mind the trade we made and now I'm glad we did it. The 2006 caproom idea is not a pipedream. There was a few threads before the season on how much money we would actually have to spend, and that was assuming Eddy _and_ Tyson would get max or near max deals. I still don't believe Eddy will get a full max contract, and even if he does, Tyson is not even close to getting one. We're going to have a very nice looking amount of money to spend then. The only thing that would ruin that is by taking on a player in a trade with a longer contract than 2006 or by signing someone this offseason to a multi year deal at a significant amount of money, something I think we can easily avoid. We'll have Kirk, Ben, Luol, Tyson, Eddy with AD, Nocioni, and probably Duhon under contract. It'd be nice to add another veteran bigman and a bigger defensive minded 2 guard in there, but I believe those spots can easily be filled by players like Othella re-signing to a one year deal and grabbing a guard on the same type of contract. Who knows, maybe Pax will get a 2nd rounder for Frankie Williams yet and steal another player from the draft to fill that spot. 

And this kind of brings me to your quoted post above. If we kept Jamal, those average typed players that would supposively sign for the MLE then wouldn't have been able to come anyway with our cap situation the way it would have been had we kept him, JYD, Eddy and Tyson. If Reinsdorf won't pay the luxury tax for Jamal, JYD, Tyson, and Eddy, he's not going to pay them and another player 5 million dollars. And I don't think we have to hit a homerun and sign an "elite" free agent to justify the Jamal trade either. We didn't even trade an elite player to get cap space. It would be nice if Peja or someone like that came here, but I'm not going to be disappointed if we don't get someone like that. Given the set of circumstances I believe Pax was put in, as long as you get a guy comparable to Jamal's talent, I think we did pretty good.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well sure, I just want my team to not be one of them. Certainly it was easy to think everything was gonna come up sunny going into last year, but that doesn't mean that a good GM might have looked at things and decided they wouldn't.
> ...


Those are all fair responses. But I don't think anybody could've ever predicted last year's disaster prior to the season. Every fan and sports writer slated the Bulls in as one of the up-and-coming teams in the NBA. A young talented core of the 3 C's, along with our veteran leaders, Rose, Marshall, & Pippen, sure looked good on paper despite losing Jay Williams and gaining Kirk Hinrich to replace him. I think any good GM would've looked at that team and expected them to do something. Heck, I think everyone on this board was fooled into being optimistic. Unfortunately the chemistry on the floor was bad, and the team defense was worse; even worse than anyone could've predicted. Maybe you're right...maybe Paxson should've seen that disaster coming a mile away. But with the high hopes I had as a fan, as well as many others, I would've been pretty pi$$ed off if Pax broke up that team before the season started. At least he gave them 20 games or so to show what they could do. Besides, whether he blew up the team during the summer or after 20 games played, I don't see why it makes a difference. Either way, they would've ended up with one of the worst records in the league. Seems to me that Paxson was in for a disaster no matter what he did. If he tried rebuilding after immediately becoming GM, then the Bulls are still likely a 20-30 win team last year. If he let's the Rose-led Bulls play the entire season without making a trade, I think they're still a 20-30 win team last year. As we all know, he chose to re-construct in mid-season, and ends up with 21 wins. I don't think there was ANYTHING he could've done to put this team beyond 30 wins last year. Even if he lucks into signing Posey over Pippen, I have a hard time seeing a recipe for success. The team still would've been 2-4 players away from even making the playoffs. Now that he's added Gordon, Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni (i.e. the 2-4 players I just mentioned), we're finally seeing some wins. Bottom line, Pax hasn't blown us away with any unforeseen success, but he also hasn't been given a chance to let his vision be completed. In light of their recent surge, I'll give Pax a 'B', but really it's more fair to give him an Incomplete.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> *Say what you will about the need to "clean house" and get rid of the "cancers" (which is a massive load of BS IMO)... the fact is other alleged "cancers" have yielded FAR more in trades. Look around the league. Other teams have made trades for space and gotten waaaaaaaay more then the rejects, has beens, and never will bes that Pax got.*
> 
> His trading technique gets a flat "F". If he doesn't like you personally, he'll have you benched and shipped out, regardless of your actual value or production. And don't think other players and GMs around the league don't talk and notice his shortsightedness. They do.
> ...



Like what? When teams have traded players for cap space, the main thing they get back *was* the cap space. The only reason a team would get more assets for their player than Pax got is b/c they have a better player to offer than what Jamal is. 

Look at the major cap clearing trades in the past couple years.

The Suns got back 2 first round picks (one mid 1st rounder last summer, and another that they likely won't have for years b/c it's protected until 2010)and Lampe but traded one of the best PGs in the league for Marbury. 

The Hawks didn't get anything but expiring contracts when they traded Shareef Abdur Rahim and Theo Ratliff. 

When the Nuggets traded Nick Van Exel, Raef Lafrentz, and Avery Johnson, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, they got back Juwon Howard, Tim Hardaway, and Donnel Harvey and the 25th pick in the draft. 

How could we have gotten any more in a capclearing move for Jamal, much less "wayyyyy" more? And also, if that's all it took to get Jamal was some expiring contracts, why didn't any other team come a knockin?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to hash out another Jamal argument here, but I completely agree. Usually the press is able to publicize when certain teams are interested in trading for a player, especially when negotiations are being conducted for roughly 6 weeks. Who else did we hear about other than NY having interest? I remember hearing vague interest from Denver. That's it. I also remember Isiah Thomas initially refusing to give up Mutombo along with all his other expiring contracts, and Paxson somehow got him to budge. Be happy with Pax for not giving into the pressure and taking back someone like Moochie Norris.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> The Suns got back 2 first round picks (one mid 1st rounder last summer, and another that they likely won't have for years b/c it's protected until 2010)and Lampe but traded one of the best PGs in the league for Marbury.
> 
> How could we have gotten any more in a capclearing move for Jamal, much less "wayyyyy" more? And also, if that's all it took to get Jamal was some expiring contracts, why didn't any other team come a knockin?


I would have been much more happy if we had recieved A pick, A young talent. Anything other then a complete dump off.

Of the trades you mentions, aside from the hawks, the teams dumping got something with some value, be it a mid-round 1st roung pick, a guy like Lampe or Harvey. Maybe I'm nuts, but I just think it would be nice to have something to show for a talented guy like Jamal....


As for the "only one team had interest" misnomer... I think most teams saw the Knicks going after him hard (there were talks for 3 months or something crazy like that) and didn't think he'd be avalible (also that the Bulls would match any reasonable offer). There was more interest then just the Knicks, and there would have been a lot more had he really been avalible (UFA).


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> well argued as always, but I disagree with a couple points. . .
> 
> first, i have never been a fan of the gib-cut, but we have to be ready to re-evaluate our stance. from the lakers game on the west coast trip on, this team has shown a resiliency that previous incarnations did not have. the momentum shift on the road, is new and may be attributable to the attitude shift. the jury is out.


True the jury is out. Call me jaded, but I've seen times in past years where it looked like it was coming together... and then the wheels fell off. This is still a 10-18 team, and when looking at the big picture thats.. bad, frankly. (and also the same record we had last year... aka no improvement despite HIGH turnover and more promises of playoffs?)

Maybe I'm just not sold yet on the "try hard and wins will come" philosophy yet. I've been the optomist with my friends for a long time, but eventually... Trying isn't enough anymore. 



> secondly, addressing your point about the trade value of "cancers," once a player is branded a problem their value is jack. the two classic examples are rasheed and vince carter. these players have ten times the talent of jalen rose. a.d. and change is all-world when viewed in the context of those brutally lopsided "ship a cancer" moves. while i'll let others argue that we did not get equal value, to say that other franchises have gotten more in return for "cancers" is a stretch.


I don't disagree that the "Cancer" label does drasticaly lower a guys trade value.... 
but
The Blazers got SAR and Theo for Wallace... that's... not THAT bad.
The Raptors got 2 1st rounders and cap space for Carter

I've heard rumors of Rose moving (WITHOUT MARSHALL) for SAR or Derek Anderson. Now tell me we wouldn't be better keeping Yell and trading Rose for SAR...

I just think John folded too early on Rose. I think he could have gotten better value and kept Donyell. But.. I guess we'll never really know, so...



> last, there is no such thing as a safe draft pick. we have both seen enough college studs fail and highschoolers flourish to know that the recipe for success is not based on experience. likewise, the drafting of ben gordon when the franchise already had a solid young player in hinrich at pg was down right gutsy. the fact that this team cannot finish without gordon on the court validates his selection. paxson deserves notice.


LOL, you got me there. There is no "safe picks". I think there are "safer picks" 3 and 4 year, low-potential guys like Hinrich and Duhon are certainly safer picks then unproven high-potential, could bust/could star guys like Telifar and Smith. 

I don't share your view on the Gordon pick however. I think the gaping hole left by Crawfords departure was something that Pax had no business ignoring. Thinking even for a second that a Gordon/Hinrich backcourt was a long term answer... sorry, I think that's pure poppycock. But thats me. 



> i'm not ready to grade paxson, but his vision deserves, at a minimum, more time before we make a formal judgment.


Agree, Agree, Agree. I don't think you can give him a final grade since... he's (hopefully) not done with the roster. I do think you can give him a grade on what he's done so far. ... sort of a... mid-term if you will?


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I would have been much more happy if we had recieved A pick, A young talent. Anything other then a complete dump off.
> ...


Those teams gave up more than what the Bulls did. 



> As for the "only one team had interest" misnomer... I think most teams saw the Knicks going after him hard (there were talks for 3 months or something crazy like that) and didn't think he'd be avalible (also that the Bulls would match any reasonable offer). There was more interest then just the Knicks, and there would have been a lot more had he really been avalible (UFA).



I know there were a few other teams that liked Jamal, but at their price. But what I asked was how come no other team was willing to give up their expiring contract(s) for him? The fact that the Knicks were after him really doesn't have anything to do with other teams not making trade offers for him. If they thought he was worth it, they would have gone hard after him like the Knicks did.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only reason the Blazers got those guys for Sheed is b/c he and Wesley Person had expiring contracts and the Hawks were clearing cap room. Rose would never fetch SAR the player or that big expiring contract of his in a trade. The Blazers were willing to take Rose and his contract to get Vince back and give up SAR in the process, not just to get Rose.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> well... all you are really saying is "wait until 2006 and accept the losing until then."


I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. This team is already starting to win and I expect them to make the playoffs in 2006.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> Those are all fair responses. But I don't think anybody could've ever predicted last year's disaster prior to the season. Every fan and sports writer slated the Bulls in as one of the up-and-coming teams in the NBA. A young talented core of the 3 C's, along with our veteran leaders, Rose, Marshall, & Pippen, sure looked good on paper despite losing Jay Williams and gaining Kirk Hinrich to replace him. I think any good GM would've looked at that team and expected them to do something. Heck, I think everyone on this board was fooled into being optimistic. Unfortunately the chemistry on the floor was bad, and the team defense was worse; even worse than anyone could've predicted. Maybe you're right...maybe Paxson should've seen that disaster coming a mile away. But with the high hopes I had as a fan, as well as many others, I would've been pretty pi$$ed off if Pax broke up that team before the season started. At least he gave them 20 games or so to show what they could do. Besides, whether he blew up the team during the summer or after 20 games played, I don't see why it makes a difference. Either way, they would've ended up with one of the worst records in the league. Seems to me that Paxson was in for a disaster no matter what he did. If he tried rebuilding after immediately becoming GM, then the Bulls are still likely a 20-30 win team last year. If he let's the Rose-led Bulls play the entire season without making a trade, I think they're still a 20-30 win team last year. As we all know, he chose to re-construct in mid-season, and ends up with 21 wins. I don't think there was ANYTHING he could've done to put this team beyond 30 wins last year. Even if he lucks into signing Posey over Pippen, I have a hard time seeing a recipe for success. The team still would've been 2-4 players away from even making the playoffs. Now that he's added Gordon, Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni (i.e. the 2-4 players I just mentioned), we're finally seeing some wins. Bottom line, Pax hasn't blown us away with any unforeseen success, but he also hasn't been given a chance to let his vision be completed. In light of their recent surge, I'll give Pax a 'B', but really it's more fair to give him an Incomplete.


Nice post Yo (and you other guys, who are making this IMO a great thread),

I don't think we're really that far apart on this. For all the negatives I see in Paxson, I do really like the drafting of the guys you mention above. I understand and support the basic idea that we needed to rebuild and weren't gonna win it all with Rose and Marshall. I've mentioned some of the negatives I see about how that rebuilding is being accomplished, but here's some other things to consider:

* How far can we get with the team as it currently exists?
We have the players we have to keep or trade, no pick this summer, and we can't do a whole lot with our cap room until 06.

* How do we handle Curry and Chandler's impending contract. If we trade them, do we get an asset or two that really helps us in the long run? If we let them leave, do we re-sign players that are really gonna help us more than they would? Suppose the answer to those two questions is no, but the only other alternative is letting them walk for nothing?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good questions/points. If Pax is truly hamstrung in such a way by his bosses, then we really do have a cheap-*** owner. I don't think we *know* if this is the case... but it would not surprise me. I've said before I think many of the Bulls problems start higher than Paxson.

That being said... lowering Crawford's value by ripping him in the press and screwing around with his playing time to give the D-League some NBA burn last season seemed like a poor choice. Not even getting a draft pick or a serviceable player in return... well.. that's just a waste IMO. The cap space will only be worth anything to me if they land a player significantly better than Crawford. If Uncle Jerry isn't willing to take the risk of maybe having to pay a small amount of luxury tax for 1 season to keep a good young player that you burned a lotto pick on, then he really should sell the team because he won't be able to compete with the teams that are willing to do much more than that.

If all this cap space we are building results in a "Jamal-like" player... then I would rather just keep Crawford and have his services for these two years. Some people bring up playing time.. but a little less Duhon and Pistol would work fine with me. I know we could have used Jamal in a couple games this season. I know that many people are pining for a big, scoring guard.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. This team is already starting to win and I expect them to make the playoffs in 2006.


.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. This team is already starting to win and I expect them to make the playoffs in 2006.


Do you think Curry and Chandler will both be back with the team?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think Curry and Chandler will both be back with the team?


No, I don't. And I'm not sure quite how I feel about that. I guess it will all depend on the return.

I agreed with the "addition by subtraction" moves Pax made in the past; i.e. Rose, E-Rob and Crawford. But the time for that is over. If either of the Towers is dealt, it must be for immediate value.

There should be no backward steps taken at this point. The team is turning the corner.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice post Yo (and you other guys, who are making this IMO a great thread),
> ...


How far can we get with the current team? I think it really comes down to how hard these young guys work in the off-season. In past summers, we're always worried about guys staying in shape and putting in the time to made themselves better. I don't think we need to worry about that anymore...I think we have the kind of guys who will make it happen. 

In terms of talent, I really do see big things from the Gordon/Hinrich backcourt long-term. Maybe I'm overrating them since I'm such a big fan, but I think they have every bit the potential that the Stockton (circa 1998) & Hornacek combo had...and those 2 guys made it to the finals because they could both shoot lights out, they both worked their arse off on D, and the both played within a TEAM system (not to mention the clutch factor being there). I see similar qualities in Kirk & Ben...they just need a little more time in this league before making the leap to that level. (sidenote: I also don't see these particular qualities in Crawford, which is why I had no problem in letting him go.)

Most people would agree with me that Luol Deng is certainly our SF for the future. He's another guy with "big balls" who brings the effort defensively and has the size/length and versatile game to compliment our smallish backcourt. So basically what I'm saying is, I think we're set long-term at the 1, 2, and 3...I see enough talent and the right kind of guys that could pull a team to the Finals. 

The question marks of this team is at the 4 and 5. It's too hard to tell if Curry or Chandler have the mindset is takes to be a championship sort of team. I agree that when it's all said and done, one of Paxson's most critical moves is what he does with our young bigs this off-season. Since it's so hard to find good NBA centers, let alone one who can score, I'm leaning toward signing Curry long-term, but you never know when he starts to fall back into bad habits. I'm not sure if we'll ever consider Eddy a reliable player. Tyson has the mindset, but not exactly the tools of a championship caliber power forward. Bottom line, Paxson needs to fill out the 4 and 5 if he ever makes the Bulls championship material again. Maybe our cap space in 2006 will be the answer to this, or maybe he pulls a trade for a go-to low-post player. But the team as it is should at least make it past the 1st round of the playoffs if we give them another few years to develop.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> *In my view Paxson has been substandard in the aspect of putting a competitive team on the floor.*
> 
> Paxson entered his job with little or no managerial experience and has done very little to inspire faith that he knows what to do in regards to putting a good team out on the floor.
> ...


and with these words, this thread began on 12-30-04.

it is now the all-star break, midway through the season, and i thought it could be interesting, discussion wise (nothing else really cooking till tuesday) to revisit.

please note:

the bulls are 17-6 in the new year (and for those that keep score of these kinds of things, the knicks, for example, are 5-16 in that same span)

the bulls have a winning record of 26-23 at the break. 

maybe i am doing this to deflect attention from the jamal thread (scott and wynn! stop it! right now!)

the light is on at the end of the tunnel and shining brighter than it has in a loooonnnng time.

anyone care to revise/refresh their opinions?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Very interesting thread, and short enough to re-read... 

Gotta give Paxson an <b>A</b> for his moves. I still shake my head when I watch Bulls games lately. Deng is our first two-way small forward since Pip. Gordon is electric and nobody (sans HKF probably) really saw it coming. Finally have a closer. Duhon a steady PG in the 2nd round. What an unbelievable draft.

Paxson really did roll the dice this summer. Traded away the team's leading scorer for minor cap relief and role players. (We didn't know Othella had anything to offer us). Traded away a future #1 to land Deng. This left us with basically one of the youngest teams in the NBA again, no draft picks for next season, little cap room til two years later in 2006, crazy Skiles as coach... and we get off to an 0-9 start. It was looking like two more years of losing before having any wiggle room.

But the team has turned the corner and is good again. Good, young, and dare I say well coached. Mucho props to Paxson for sticking with the plan when very few of us saw the light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

^^^I'm not trying to be flip. But the part about very few seeing light at the end of the tunnel.........I have to disagree. There were quite a few of us. The part that very few saw, was the part that included this present season being so good so far

But light at the end? There were plenty


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> ...B is about as good as you get as an NBA GM.
> ...


Mmmm. I left out Othella and Duhon as positives, but I wouldn't change my overall take.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> compared to other GMs, A.


I stick by my grade. This thread wasn't that long ago and I can't believe some of the bad grades given. He inherited a crap team made good moves, drafted solidly, works with our coach.

Anyone remember that dumb argument about Krause is looked at in a negative light because he's old and looks like jabba the hutt but Pax is relatively young, white GM with strapping good looks? 

I wouldn't care if he was a leper, this record is good enough for me (for this season)


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

And i agree with fleetwood macbull that some of us were up beat and even we were 0 and 9 tried to stay the course by pointing out this was a young team and was playing the #1 hardest schedule the first 6 weeks. But as i keep saying that was then and this is now.

We won 23 games last year (?) and this year we are already looking at 26 at the all star break. IMHO we win 45 or 46 games this year. That is a 23 game turn around. With 4 rookies palying big minutes, one second year player and two 23 year old big men. 

How to grade paxson, come on it has to be an A. I too am sorry we didn't resign JC, hell we could have traded him for another Sg but still, Paxson gets and A. O. Harrington has been great and IMHO shuold be starting and say what you want skiles has the whole team buy in. We play great D, hustle, and hell it is fun too watch these kids play. Gius votes for and A, some on everyone, grades a scored on a curve and paxosn gets an A.

david


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*A*


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I must've let the Pax critics really get to my head when I voted my grade, because I originally had him at a 'B', with the potential for that to improve. I guess that was considering the few negatives, which compared to other teams' blunders, really weren't very big blunders at all (i.e. the Pippen signing...am I missing anything??). When your team is 26-23 at the all-star break, and we're nearly free of all messy contracts, how can your GM not get an 'A'? 

Pax, you get an 'A'.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Grade our GM.*



> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> and with these words, this thread began on 12-30-04.
> ...


I dont, not in the least .

while you pick and choose to quote what i said , i notice you left the reasons for that statement absent even though they were also in that post.

a person could say thay won 17 of their last 23 and be very correct just as someone could say they have also lost 4 of their last 8 or that they won 3 straight , its really all in how you look at it.

I tend believe the big reasons for their upswing is not the talent on the court pax has assembled but more on their phenomenal health and a pax addition i'll admit I haven't given enough credit to , scott skiles(he should be up for coach of the year for the job he's turned in this year), in truth i think they have for the most part evened out , they are beginning to be as banged up as the rest of the league and their record over the past 2-3 weeks coincides with that(4-4). 

now a question for you 
why has it taken you 7 weeks to basically clip a response to me (one that didn't tell the whole story by the way)on a thread i haven't even posted on in over 6 weeks?

It looks to me that you are trying to provoke something.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

A+


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

You know, I looked back over this thread and I realized that in my feverish attempt to question the validity of any opinion grading him at a C or lower that I didn't even give him a grade.

Well, I would have given him a B+ then, and I stick by that now. An "A" is perfection. As huge a fan as I am of Paxson and his moves, I can't see he has been perfect. 

But he certainly has been remarkable. So B+ it is.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Grade our GM.*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont, not in the least .
> ...



i honestly wasn't.

i think this is an interesting thread. i quoted just the opening bit in an attempt to revisit the dialogue you started, not to call you out or anything. though i do think that a D grade is a bit harsh, i respect that it is your opinion.

plus i really did want to see what posters thought at the midway point of the season, and if any would change their mark. you have chosen not to amend the D grade you gave pax. that's cool.

i think he's doing better than that, frankly. i didn't grade him when you started the thread. i was discouraged by the negativity. 

my grade for pax at the midterm is an *A-*

i base this on the fact that despite an 0-9 start, the bulls at the break have a winning record, albeit by a slim margin. i would have been happy if it were at .500 or even a few games under at this point when the season began. 

his drafts have been impeccable, he has shown patience with eddy and tyson. he has a vision for how the game should be approached and played. he got rid of me first players. and honestly, i could care less about the whole corie blount thing (corie blount!) cause that's life in the big show. 

nobody is perfect. 

and i have always believed patience to be a virtue.





:meditate:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Grade our GM.*



> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thats cool and you are right patience is a virtue , but at the same time if you wait too long its not a virtue but a burden, things in life tend to find their balance eventually.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I think I posted in this thread and gave Pax a B or a B+. I'd give him an A-/B+ right now. His drafts are a solid A. His trades are a B/B- (slightly above average) because, while they did serve a purpose that has ended up helping this team, we did give up more pure talent than we got back. Thankfully his drafts have filled in those cracks quite nicely. I'm also hesitant to give him a straight A just because we still have that tall-SG dilemma, which has arguably cost us a game or two directly (R. Davis posting Gordon jumps to mind). That game or two could be the difference in the playoff run. I think he'll look into addressing that issue, but it doesn't look like anything will get done before the trade deadline.


----------

