# Year 3: Are Paxson's Bulls a good basketball team?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Three years collecting paychecks now.

Are we good?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

edited for masked cursing ACE


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

edited for masked cursing ACE


:rofl:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

rep goes to unBULLievable.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Thanks unBULLievable! It needed to be said.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Basghetti80 said:


> Thanks unBULLievable! It needed to be said.



Not on this board it didn't, we don't allow masked cursing! Thanks!

the Mod Squad


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I still think the Bulls are a pretty good team, overall.

but



> "We haven't played well of late," Chicago coach Scott Skiles said. "It's obvious for everybody to see. In order for us to win an NBA game we have to play a lot better than we're playing right now."


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Hats taste so much worse the second time...............................


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

We're playing like tripe right now, but we're still better than just about anything Krause put on the floor post-dynasty. And we have an enviable combination of youth, picks, and cap space to put to use. 

Right now we're an average team. We're in a pathetic slump right now, but I think we'll bounce back and string together some winning ball before too long.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We're playing like tripe right now, but we're still better than just about anything Krause put on the floor post-dynasty. And we have an enviable combination of youth, picks, and cap space to put to use.
> 
> Right now we're an average team. We're in a pathetic slump right now, but I think we'll bounce back and string together some winning ball before too long.



I wonder about that. I kind of like Crawford, Brand, Artest, Miller If only they had been given a good coach and time to grow together.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I don't think there is much comparison between the talent Krause acquired and the players Paxson drafted/acquired.

Krause went after MVP candidates, all NBA defense guys and all-stars.

Now, the subsequent trades made after those players were acquired can certainly be questioned.

I have a hard time seeing any of our Paxson acquired players, save for one, contending for an all-star team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I wonder about that. I kind of like Crawford, Brand, Artest, Miller If only they had been given a good coach and time to grow together.


When they were Bulls, they were piling up 15-20 wins a season. Hindsight is 20-20, and it was Krause who gave up all those guys except Jamal (who still hasn't been on a winner).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause went after MVP candidates, all NBA defense guys and all-stars.
> 
> Now, the subsequent trades made after those players were acquired can certainly be questioned.


Yep. Its kind of hard to give Krause a whole lot of credit for assembling teams that sucked and that he then broke up on his own, only to see some of those players perform at a high level elsewhere several years later.

And I'm a Krause fan. I understand what he was *trying* to do and I commend him for it. It just didn't work. Indeed, it failed to historic levels of sucktitude.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yep. Its kind of hard to give Krause a whole lot of credit for assembling teams that sucked and that he then broke up on his own, only to see some of those players perform at a high level elsewhere several years later.
> 
> And I'm a Krause fan. I understand what he was *trying* to do and I commend him for it. It just didn't work. Indeed, it failed to historic levels of sucktitude.



Yep. It was mainly his decisions on coaches that screwed him. He ws also pressured into the Rose deal but thats another story. Still, even though the team did not perform well there is no denying the talent he managed to assemble was rather impressive.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Yep. It was mainly his decisions on coaches that screwed him. He ws also pressured into the Rose deal but thats another story. Still, even though the team did not perform well *there is no denying the talent he managed to assemble was rather impressive.*


No doubt about it. Too bad he didn't realize it. But in looking at what was going on at the time, and not through hindsight, I don't really blame Krause for the risks he took.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Three years collecting paychecks now.
> 
> Are we good?


This is a worthless poll.

As I'm sure you're aware, the thread title has no logical relevancy to the poll.

One can believe that the team is not "good," and still think Paxson is excelling.

And I do.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Yep. Its kind of hard to give Krause a whole lot of credit for assembling teams that sucked and that he then broke up on his own, only to see some of those players perform at a high level elsewhere several years later.
> 
> And I'm a Krause fan. I understand what he was *trying* to do and I commend him for it. It just didn't work. Indeed, it failed to historic levels of sucktitude.


I'm not a Krause hater either, despite some of the crticisms I've posted of him. It's more a frustration when Paxson is derided for having no vision, yada yada yada, and then holding up Krause as a true prophet, when his BEST post-MJ team won 30 games and Paxson won 47 in his 2nd full year. There's a real disconnect there. Krause did have some great drafts and he was willing to roll the dice sometimes. But he also did things like hiring Tim Floyd and made some short-sighted moves either due to impatience or pressure from Jerry R. 

Perhaps Paxson can be criticized for being conservative, or not being a true believer in words like "potential" or "upside", but after sitting on my hands for 6 years waiting for Krause's gems to wake up and lead us to the promised land and being continually disappointed, I'm perfectly OK with that. We'll see where it goes.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)




----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No doubt about it. Too bad he didn't realize it. But in looking at what was going on at the time, and not through hindsight, I don't really blame Krause for the risks he took.


Krause was against the 1st Rose trade.

I'm still not sure as to what forces were at play behind the scenes in the Brand swap.

I think its hard to pin all of it on Krause.

I'm pretty sure he wanted to see his young players blossom as Bulls and become a winner. Unfortunately, other forces come into play.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm not a Krause hater either, despite some of the crticisms I've posted of him. It's more a frustration when Paxson is derided for having no vision, yada yada yada, and then holding up Krause as a true prophet, when his BEST post-MJ team won 30 games


You mean his 1st, 2nd post MJ team, right?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause was against the 1st Rose trade.
> 
> I'm still not sure as to what forces were at play behind the scenes in the Brand swap.
> 
> ...


Maybe he was against the Rose trade, but I've never seen confirmation of that. But the Brand for Chandler trade has Jerry Krause written all over it.

You must understand, I'm not even being critical of him. But I'm not going to say "the devil made him do it" to defend him either. He was the GM. I've never seen anything to make me believe that he wasn't in part or in full responsible for the moves he made. 

*V-Flog* (cool, huh?): I wouldn't want you to think that my empathy with Krause on his moves, and the talent he acquired and subsequently dismantled, means in any way that I disagree with the approach Paxson is taking now. 

I think Paxson has made a couple of mistakes, like all GMs do, but by and large I'm in total agreement with what he's doing to date. That may change of course.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> You mean his 1st, 2nd post MJ team, right?


Post 1998. The between-3peats teams were pretty good and Krause deserves some credit for that.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Isn't it hilarious that you can't "pin all of it on Krause", yet you can certainly "pin all of it on Paxson"?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> *V-Flog* (cool, huh?): I wouldn't want you to think that my empathy with Krause on his moves, and the talent he acquired and subsequently dismantled, means in any way that I disagree with the approach Paxson is taking now.
> 
> I think Paxson has made a couple of mistakes, like all GMs do, but by and large I'm in total agreement with what he's doing to date. That may change of course.


I pretty much agree. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to like one guy and hate the other. Like I said, it just rankles me when Krause's post-dynasty record is held up as something Paxson should aspire to, when the objective evidence is that Paxson's methods are working better so far. I understood a lot of Krause's moves, applauded some of them, but in the end, nothing he did worked out particularly well, except for the teams we traded with.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Isn't it hilarious that you can't "pin all of it on Krause", yet you can certainly "pin all of it on Paxson"?



The specter of Uncle Jerry and business considerations are always present. Nobody is saying otherwise.

For instance, I'm pretty sure the Skiles situation would have been handled differently if Paxson was the only force at work in the front office.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I pretty much agree. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to like one guy and hate the other. Like I said, it just rankles me when Krause's post-dynasty record is held up as something Paxson should aspire to, when the objective evidence is that Paxson's methods are working better so far. I understood a lot of Krause's moves, applauded some of them, but in the end, nothing he did worked out particularly well, except for the teams we traded with.



But the plan was to become horrible to acquire talent to get very good long term. The becoming horrible part was certainly accomplished.

The current regime's plan, IMO, was to acquire jib college/international (players from good programs, players that know how to win) talent to become respectable quick. Upside is limited though. 

And I’m not sure we’re even respectable anymore. We’re 1-2 this season against a team that didn’t exist when Paxson took over the team.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> hypocrite
> 
> n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold


*******.

n : Click Here

or here (brace yourself for a lesson in great web design)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> hypocrite
> 
> n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold



bait 1 (bt)
n.
1. 
a. Food or other lure placed on a hook or in a trap and used in the taking of fish, birds, or other animals.
b. Something, such as a worm, used for this purpose.
2. An enticement; a temptation.
3. Archaic A stop for food or rest during a trip.
v. bait·ed, bait·ing, baits 
v.tr.
1. To place a lure in (a trap) or on (a fishing hook).
2. To entice, especially by trickery or strategy.
3. To set dogs upon (a chained animal, for example) for sport.
*4. To attack or torment, especially with persistent insults, criticism, or ridicule.*
5. To tease.
6. To feed (an animal), especially on a journey.
v.intr. Archaic 
To stop for food or rest during a trip.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Paxson made 2 mistakes, trading Curry, and trading Crawford, here is how our team would look without those two moves.

PG-Kirk Hinrich/Chris Duhon
SG-Jamal Crawford/Ben Gordon
SF-Luol Deng/Andres Nocioni
PF-Antonio Davis/Tyson Chandler
C- Eddy Curry/Tyson Chandler

That team is infinitely better than the pathetic team we are now. But 2 top 5 picks in this draft will be neat, but can we capitalize? If we can draft Rudy Gay and Shelden Williams i'll be happy.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> But the plan was to become horrible to acquire talent to get very good long term. The becoming horrible part was certainly accomplished.


That's debateable. I think Krause's plan was to get some good players in the draft after the 50-game season, and let them play big minutes. He did that with Brand and Artest. THEN, he wanted to add at least one, maybe 2 "full boat" free agents that would turn us around immediately. Imagine a team of Crawford, McGrady, Artest, Brand, Miller...not bad. Once that didn't work out, I think Krause hit restart a couple times (Brand trade, Rose trade) when he didn't absolutely need to.

Compare with Paxson. It took him longer, but he has cleared out cap space to make a run at free agents OR (and I hope this is what happens instead) make a trade for a star where we can use TT's contract or don't have to match salaries. The difference is that we've improved remarkably in the interim, instead of becoming so horrible that even egotistical superstars didn't think they could save us.



> The current regime's plan, IMO, was to acquire jib college/international (players from good programs, players that know how to win) talent to become respectable quick. Upside is limited though.


I think the time has come for us, once and for all, to just agree to disagree on how much upside Pax's plan has. I agree that he's not a guy to roll the dice on a risky high school player, but I don't think that hamstrings his vision. 



> And I’m not sure we’re even respectable anymore. We’re 1-2 this season against a team that didn’t exist when Paxson took over the team.


We're playing very badly right now, and our team is incomplete. But I think we'll still be respectable this season when it's all said and done. We shall see.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That's debateable. I think Krause's plan was to get some good players in the draft after the 50-game season, and let them play big minutes. He did that with Brand and Artest. THEN, he wanted to add at least one, maybe 2 "full boat" free agents that would turn us around immediately. Imagine a team of Crawford, McGrady, Artest, Brand, Miller...not bad. Once that didn't work out, I think Krause hit restart a couple times (Brand trade, Rose trade) when he didn't absolutely need to.


I agree with this, except I honestly don't think, from what I read and from following the team close at the time, that Krause wanted to give up on his young players and make the Rose trade..... but Artest's insanity and the death spiral the team was marketability wise forced his hand. 

I didn't mean *stay* horrible forever and ever, which is what happened.

I have a hard time ripping Krause for dealing Artest... since he's on the market now and we're not clamoring to grab him here , for obvious reasons.


I have a hard time seeing our current guards leading us to the promised land. The only players I can see making huge impacts in the league are Chandler, who Paxson didn't acquire and Deng, who Paxson initially passed up for Gordon. This decision troubles me more than anything…. Gordon over Deng. It’s a pretty clear indication of what Paxson valued, at least at the time.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We're playing very badly right now, and our team is incomplete. But I think we'll still be respectable this season when it's all said and done. We shall see.


By "said and done," do you mean you think Pax is going to stand pat, or do you think he'll make a move of some kind?

Because the last few games have convinced me that if he stands pat, this is a 34- to 38-win team at best. Maybe the effort isn't what we all hoped it would be, and maybe guys are starting to tune out Skiles, but when you're taking the floor with Andres Nocioni and Michael Sweetney as your starting 4-5, when your entire backcourt is 6-2 and under, and when you're getting killed every night at the FT line (to me, this is overwhelmingly a structural problem, not an issue of "not trying" or an officiating conspiracy), I think the Bulls are going to be fighting an uphill battle in the majority of the games they play the rest of the way.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I have a hard time ripping Krause for dealing Artest... since he's on the market now and we're not clamoring to grab him here , for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I have a hard time seeing our current guards leading us to the promised land. The only players I can see making huge impacts in the league are Chandler, who Paxson didn't acquire and Deng, who Paxson chose Gordon over. This decision troubles me more than anything…. Gordon over Deng. It’s a pretty clear indication of what Paxson valued, at least at the time.


Agree on Artest. It's easy to say that we should have kept RonRon considering how amazing of a player he is when he's focused, but if he's been this hard to keep under control on a team that's a contender for the East, I shudder to think what would have gone down if he'd stayed on the Bulls and endured another losing season or two.

Re: Ben over Luol, I think Paxson saw star power in Gordon. His 4th quarter heroics last year suggested that it was there, though he hasn't lived up to it since. I'm just happy we HAVE Luol...I don't really care how it came to pass.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree with this, except I honestly don't think, from what I read and from following the team close at the time, that Krause wanted to give up on his young players and make the Rose trade..... but Artest's insanity and the death spiral the team was marketability wise forced his hand.
> 
> I didn't mean *stay* horrible forever and ever, which is what happened.
> 
> ...


I think that generally, any opinions on Krause or Paxson are pretty unsubstantiated at this point. Krause, by your own argument, wasn't allowed to really craft the team the way he wanted to. Pax, however, isn't done just yet and as of last year, has always looked to 2006 as the crowning offseason for the true core of the team. I mean, Malik Allen? Darius Songaila?

The Eddy Curry thing also strapped Pax, as much as Artest's marketability strapped Krause (which I have not yet understood). You can argue that Pax was being ridiculous but I think that there's a debate in the sports world as to whether Pax was really being unreasonable or not. Most of the literature I read supports Pax more than goes against him.

But the fact was, Pax expected to keep Curry and not to be forced to trade him. The offseason planning was built around that, and around keeping AD as well. We traded those guys for ONE Mike Sweetney (great support player) and an invisible Tim Thomas.

You can't really accurately measure how "good" a job they are doing, but three years into Jerry Krause's tenure, the Bulls were just about to make the playoffs. And they had the most dominant player in all of basketball, a guy that came in the league as a dominant scorer and defender. We have no such player yet we've made the playoffs within Pax's first three years.

I think it's more accurate to consider where they are at six years, when Krause had put together his first championship ring. Paxson has not yet found his "Jordan" but don't think that he's not looking. I've never heard him reference even once any notion that he thinks this team is complete. I've only heard him speak about flexibility in the future and cap space in 06.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> By "said and done," do you mean you think Pax is going to stand pat, or do you think he'll make a move of some kind?
> 
> Because the last few games have convinced me that if he stands pat, this is a 34- to 38-win team at best. Maybe the effort isn't what we all hoped it would be, and maybe guys are starting to tune out Skiles, but when you're taking the floor with Andres Nocioni and Michael Sweetney as your starting 4-5, when your entire backcourt is 6-2 and under, and when you're getting killed every night at the FT line (to me, this is overwhelmingly a structural problem, not an issue of "not trying" or an officiating conspiracy), I think the Bulls are going to be fighting an uphill battle in the majority of the games they play the rest of the way.


I think this team is better than the pathetic ball they're playing now. I am definitely getting a little bit concerned that we're a 35-40 win team, but I'm not there yet. 

I think Paxson might make a move for more size during the season, and I hope that he's talking to Boston about Pierce and one of their spare big men. But even if he stands pat, I don't think the current slump is indicative of where this team will ultimately be this season. I will admit that I don't have total confidence in that assertion, though.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> By "said and done," do you mean you think Pax is going to stand pat, or do you think he'll make a move of some kind?
> 
> Because the last few games have convinced me that if he stands pat, this is a 34- to 38-win team at best. Maybe the effort isn't what we all hoped it would be, and maybe guys are starting to tune out Skiles, but when you're taking the floor with Andres Nocioni and Michael Sweetney as your starting 4-5, when your entire backcourt is 6-2 and under, and when you're getting killed every night at the FT line (to me, this is overwhelmingly a structural problem, not an issue of "not trying" or an officiating conspiracy), I think the Bulls are going to be fighting an uphill battle in the majority of the games they play the rest of the way.


The last few games, particularly the Charlotte games, have been convincing evidence that size matters in the NBA (as in Antonio Davis size). 

The Bulls are struggling to compete on the boards every game. They have difficulty defending even second line big men one-on-one inside for extended periods of time. When they double team, they get killed by jump shooters. Quickness and agressiveness on defense just don't seem to be enough. The fouls and physical effort Nocioni, Sweetney and Chandler endure just seem to wear them down. Just clearing the defensive boards seems to take heroic effort.

Unless Skiles develops an effective zone defense, or extended court pressing defense soon, I agree with the 34-38 win scenario. Playing half-court man-to-man defense with a team that is smaller at nearly every position nearly every night has got to be demoralizing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> I think it's more accurate to consider where they are at six years, when Krause had put together his first championship ring. Paxson has not yet found his "Jordan" but don't think that he's not looking. I've never heard him reference even once any notion that he thinks this team is complete. I've only heard him speak about flexibility in the future and cap space in 06.


The game has changed though, and many of the great players of the league are now drafted out of high school and require development.

Paxson has shied away from this approach, IMO, since he's been on the job.

If we're limited to players with a NCAA pedigree, then we face an uphill battle, IMO. We're already 3 years into the process though.... I guess Paxson is allowed another reset as well to be fair.

From the marketability standpoint, I was not talking about Artest individually... but the team overall. The team was brutal and was not going to be winning games anytime soon. The crowds were dead. The arena was 1/2 full. Getting Rose did make the team better immediately, if you remember, but didn't help us much in the long term. In fact, Rose's attitude and contract constrained us and "forced" Pax to make kneejerk trades.

The same could be said about our current team. This team is not capturing the hearts and minds of the sports fan. I rarley hear them talked about on the radio or at the bars.... and at least in my section of the UC, the natives are getting restless... lots of talk about not renewing season tickets... lots of empty seats in the arena... a quiet crowd.... piped in crowd noise ever more evident.... all these things may "force" Paxson to make a splash with a PP type trade. But, we very well may be better off keeping our young players and drafting new big men. 3 years from now we don't want to see big men we could have drafted dominating the league while a disgruntled, aging PP is tired of fighting and clawing every year just to get to .500.

OTOH, it would be a lot more fun for me *now* to watch PP every night and get in a few playoff games. I just don't think that team will ever win a title.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The game has changed though, and many of the great players of the league are now drafted out of high school and require development.
> 
> Paxson has shied away from this approach, IMO, since he's been on the job.
> 
> ...



If we only trade one pick to get him then it is not inconceivable that we could add Pierce and STILL get that stud big in the draft and even Blount as that second big we need.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> If we only trade one pick to get him then it is not inconceivable that we could add Pierce and STILL get that stud big in the draft and even Blount as that second big we need.


And this situation is the one I'm unsure of, which Showtyme hammered me for a few posts back.

Two chances at hitting the lotto, perhaps landing a franchise altering talent, if our team continues to suck, plus whatever Cap Space can become vs. One chance, PP and less Cap Space.


hmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

PP is a proven home run.

Any draft pick not names Shaq, Duncan, Iverson, etc., has a LOT to prove to be PP's equal.

FWIW


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The game has changed though, and many of the great players of the league are now drafted out of high school and require development.
> 
> Paxson has shied away from this approach, IMO, since he's been on the job.


What high school player could Paxson have drafted, that he should have drafted, that he didn't draft?

Shaun Livingston? Josh Smith? J.R. Smith? I'd have a hard time justifying picking any of those guys over the guys that Paxson picked. 

It doesn't seem to me that Paxson "shied away" from this approach. It seems to me that given the HS talent that was there for the taking when the Bulls picked, Paxson didn't think they were a safe risk.

He did take Luol Deng as a 19 year old (yes, after Gordon). 

Paxson has openly acknowledged, even going back to last season, that this team doesn't have enough talent. Based on his own statements, I believe he knows that "jib" and a "college pedigree" aren't enough to get it done in this league.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What high school player could Paxson have drafted, that he should have drafted, that he didn't draft?
> 
> Shaun Livingston? Josh Smith? J.R. Smith? I'd have a hard time justifying picking any of those guys over the guys that Paxson picked.
> 
> ...


I remember quotes from Paxson that he would not be interested in a Dwight Howard type, if he had the 1st pick in that draft. Something like "that's not what this team is interested in doing at this time."

I don't have the archives at my disposal... I'm sure someone else remembers this as well.

His whole shtick is players from good programs that play the right way that know how to win.

Taking a gamble on a young, inexperienced HS player or international player does not fit this mold.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I remember quotes from Paxson that he would not be interested in a Dwight Howard type, if he had the 1st pick in that draft. Something like "that's not what this team is interested in doing at this time."
> 
> I don't have the archives at my disposal... I'm sure someone else remembers this as well.


That doesn't answer my question. 

You are saying he "shied away" from a particular approach - i.e. drafting High School players. One cannot "shy away" from something that does not exist. Dwight Howard never existed as a draft option for John Paxson. 

In other words, you are speculating into the future that you think he *would* shy away from such an opportunity if it arose. 

Regarding your statement, I recall that comment as well. It was about Josh Smith, not Dwight Howard. I recall John Paxson being pretty darn high on Howard, and being disappointed that Howard was only going to work out for Charlotte and Orlando that year.

*Query: Do you guys know John Paxson's middle name? Without looking it up? I didn't. Its an unusual one.*


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> *Query: Do you guys know John Paxson's middle name? Without looking it up? I didn't. Its an unusual one.*


Yes, I do. 

But I'm a trivia queen. 

(It's his mother's maiden name, btw)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> His whole shtick is players from good programs that play the right way that know how to win.
> 
> Taking a gamble on a young, inexperienced HS player or international player does not fit this mold.


No. That is what he has done do date. It is not his "schtick". Paxson has never said he'd only draft the right types of players from the right types of programs. To my knowledge, he's never even said it was his preference. But it is what he has done. And its hard to argue with who he picked. Gordon, okay. I can see why some call that one a reach. But who should he have taken instead? Iggy. Another multi-dimensional player from a good college program.

You have to look at his picks by considering what else was available to him at the time, not simply the pedigree of the player drafted.

Again, what HS player or international player should Paxson have drafted, that he did not draft?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

narek said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> But I'm a trivia queen.
> 
> (It's his mother's maiden name, btw)


That explains it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Here's a good article, since I'm being forced to dig.

June 24, 2004

BY ROMAN MODROWSKI STAFF REPORTER

It was a throw-away line as a meeting concluded between Bulls operations
chief John Paxson and several writers late in the season.

Paxson said he might have to attempt something drastic at some point and go
for an All-Star-caliber player.
*
Paxson is not an impatient man. He can't afford to be in his position. But
Paxson is tired of waiting.


He's tired of waiting for talent to develop. He'd rather acquire a proven
player, even if it's not quite All-Star-caliber, than draft potential stars
who might not make a difference for four seasons -- if ever.
*
That's why Paxson was working the phones so hard Wednesday night to acquire
established talent.

His trade with Phoenix for the No. 7 pick gives Paxson flexibility in a
fluid NBA market.

Shaquille O'Neal? No. And while Magic general manager John Weisbrod said
seven teams now are in the mix for Tracy McGrady, don't look for the Bulls
to be in that group. Criticism of McGrady's work habits and his
unwillingness to be a good practice player and leader likely wasn't lost on
Paxson, and it almost assuredly reached Bulls coach Scott Skiles.

Paxson resumed talks with the Pacers about acquiring Al Harrington, but
things didn't look promising. Indiana didn't like the bad contract Paxson
needed to throw in to make the deal work.

It's possible Ron Artest's name surfaced in talks between the teams.

Paxson wasn't worried about getting someone who would provide veteran
leadership and guidance to younger teammates while sitting on the injured
list or playing sporadically.

Paxson pursued a proven NBA player, and those have been lacking on the Bulls
for the last six seasons.

He doesn't think this is a horrible draft. Paxson admires Ben Gordon's
toughness and Andre Iguodala's defensive ability. He finds Luol Deng to be
an intelligent 19-year-old prospect, wise beyond his years with a high
basketball IQ. Paxson also was enamored with Oregon shooting guard Luke
Jackson.

But none of those players is likely to turn out to be another LeBron James
or Carmelo Anthony, somebody who immediately will turn his team into a
playoff contender.

Paxson and chairman Jerry Reinsdorf don't want to have a lottery pick next
year, at least not one earned by having one of the worst records in the
league.

The Bulls need a lot of help to stay away from Secaucus next April. It's
going to take more than one player, and it's going to take more than two
draft picks.

It's going to take Eddy Curry living up to his potential and Kirk Hinrich
building off a fantastic rookie season.

And it's going to take the help of at least one established veteran.

That's why as Wednesday afternoon turned into late evening, a league source
referring to the Bulls said: Stay tuned.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Here's a decent quote regards Paxson's thoughts about size.

"Look at the Pistons now," pointed out Paxson, who has said all along he
would take the best player available. "Chauncey Billups is strong, but he's
only 6-foot-3. Rip Hamilton is a wiry guy. They don't have great size. But
it's really about whether guys can play together."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Here's a good article, since I'm being forced to dig.


That article says that he was looking to trade a draft pick for an established veteran like Al Harrington. So? 

What high school player or international player has John Paxson not drafted that he should have drafted?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Here's a decent quote regards Paxson's thoughts about size.
> 
> "Look at the Pistons now," pointed out Paxson, who has said all along he
> would take the best player available. "Chauncey Billups is strong, but he's
> ...


And? None of this has anything to do with the premise that you put out there that I'm disputing. You're just moving the ball around.

This is what you wrote that I'm referring to:



> The game has changed though, and many of the great players of the league are now drafted out of high school and require development.
> 
> Paxson has shied away from this approach, IMO, since he's been on the job.
> 
> If we're limited to players with a NCAA pedigree, then we face an uphill battle, IMO. We're already 3 years into the process though.... I guess Paxson is allowed another reset as well to be fair.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Livingston, Biedrins, Telfair, Jefferson, josh smith, pietrus, diaw... just throwing out some names.

Since these players are young and will take longer to develop, we'll have to see how it plays out.

I'd rather have Harrington than Gordon.



Ron Cey said:


> And? None of this has anything to do with the premise that you put out there that I'm disputing. You're just moving the ball around.
> 
> This is what you wrote that I'm referring to:


This quote from the article I posted



> *He's tired of waiting for talent to develop. He'd rather acquire a proven
> player, even if it's not quite All-Star-caliber, than draft potential stars
> who might not make a difference for four seasons -- if ever.*


along with the quote that you remember about Josh Smith should be enough.

Does not want to wait four seasons for development ----- if ever.

I don't have a quote archive so that's all I have for you your honor.

If you don't think Paxson's MO to this point is drafting/aquiring players with high bb IQs, experience and some type of proven track record of playing the right way then I have to question what team you've been following.

I should not have to subscribe to tribune.com for you to agree with this.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Quote from an article
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/SPORTS/512070383/1002



> Chicago has rebuilt masterfully through the draft, with as much an assist from general manager John Paxson as Skiles. Ben Gordon (Connecticut), Kirk Hinrich (Kansas), Chris Duhon (Duke) and Luol Deng (Duke) *emerged from top college programs and have been perfect fits under Skiles.* Five Bulls average double figures, and Chicago's top player, Ben Gordon, still comes off the bench.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Three years collecting paychecks now.
> 
> Are we good?


I know what you voted. And also know why you started this thread? Too obvious?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Livingston, Biedrins, Telfair, Jefferson, josh smith, pietrus, diaw... just throwing out some names.
> 
> Since these players are young and will take longer to develop, we'll have to see how it plays out.
> 
> ...


I do agree that this is what he has done. I do not believe he has shied away from better alternatives to do it a different way, which is what you said. 

There is a difference.

As for Al Jefferson, on the day of the draft is that a guy you were advocating that Paxson draft? We did have Chandler and Curry at the time, so I doubt it. I recall you being a Deng/Iggy guy, but maybe I'm mistaken.

I assume you are not saying that Paxson should have drafted the other guys listed, or that at the time you were advocating that he draft any of those guys on draft day.

As for the article about seeking a veteran in exchange for a draft pick, history has shown that Paxson was unwilling to give up the 3rd pick to do so, and when it didn't pan out with the seventh pick, he took one of the youngest players on the entire draft board - a 19 year old Luol Deng.

The thing is, you are saying Paxson "shied away" from building through elite high school players in the draft, which is clearly not accurate. You also repeatedly characterize his rebuilding plan as carrying some sort of "all jib, no talent" mandate, which is inconsistent with Paxson's own consistent public acknowledgements that this team needs more talent and star power.

I'm just tired of reading about it without asking for some support. 

On another note, I'm not being rude or disrespectful to you in any way, so please desist with the "your honor" jabs. I'm not interested in that type of thing anymore, and its obvious to me lately that the vast majority of the other posters on this board aren't interested in it either.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

okay damn it is someone gonna share Pax's middle name here or what?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Quote from an article
> http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/SPORTS/512070383/1002


Yes, that article from a Floridian sportswriter correctly notes that Kansas, UCONN and Duke are top college basketball programs. The article also correctly points out that Hinrich, Duhon, Deng and Gordon each attended one of those schools.

It does not say, however, that Paxson has limited his vision for rebuilding this team to such acquisitions nor that he passed over better draftee candidates when selecting those players. 

I've eaten far more hamburgers in my day than steaks. Throughout the course of my life, the vast majority of restaraunts I've eaten at offered burgers, but not steaks. This does not mean that when confronted with the choice between a burger and a steak, that I've somehow limited myself only to ordering the burger.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I do agree that this is what he has done. I do not believe he has shied away from better alternatives to do it a different way, which is what you said.


Where did I say he actually did shy away from "better alternatives?"



> On another note, I'm not being rude or disrespectful to you in any way, so please desist with the "your honor" jabs. I'm not interested in that type of thing anymore, and its obvious to me lately that the vast majority of the other posters on this board aren't interested in it either.


I'm just stunned that I have to offer some kind of proof when going for experienced, right way, good program, don't want to wait 4 years to develop players has clearly been Paxson's strategy each and every draft.

Perhaps its a coincidence that all our important draft picks have come from Kansas, Duke and UCONN.

Why would the blurb from the article about not wanting to wait years for young players to develop, along with the Josh Smith quote you seem to remember, along with his actual track record of draft picks and acquisitions, not be enough to offer a perfectly reasonable basis for what Paxson is looking for in a Chicago Bull?

I've never said its IMPOSSIBLE for Paxson to deviate from this strategy. Its just that he has not to this point. And 2.5 years of track record has to count for something. What else would you base it on, rather than the decisions he's actually made.

Do you think he does not subscribe to these beliefs? That Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon just so happened to be the best players available and their NCAA pedigree and "right way" college program mentality had nothing to do with it? Do you really think Paxson has not been making decisions based on jib?


I simply can't believe you're actually arguing about this.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> okay damn it is someone gonna share Pax's middle name here or what?


I guess thats long enough: John MacBeth Paxson.

Really.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I guess thats long enough: John MacBeth Paxson.
> 
> Really.



fascinating. 


Fair is foul, and foul is fair". - (Act I, Scene I).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I guess thats long enough: John MacBeth Paxson.
> 
> Really.


MacBeth was insane, you know.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Where did I say he actually did shy away from "better alternatives?"


I guess when you said he "shied away" you meant that he did so appropriately?



> The game has changed though, *and many of the great players of the league are now drafted out of high school and require development.
> 
> Paxson has shied away from this approach*, IMO, since he's been on the job.





> I'm just stunned that I have to offer some kind of proof when going for experienced, right way, good program, don't want to wait 4 years to develop players has clearly been Paxson's strategy each and every draft.


Perhaps this is getting too specific. It has not been his strategy. It is what he has done. It can only be called a strategy if there were other equally viable, or better, alternatives that he bypassed so as to stick to a particular pre-set definition of a player type.

Or, I guess it could be called his strategy if he said "This is my strategy". Which he has never done.



> Perhaps its a coincidence that all our important draft picks have come from Kansas, Duke and UCONN


One could even expand that list to Arizona, North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan State, Gonzaga, Texas, and even Illinois. 

Yes, its a coincidence. The best players on the board at the time were from those programs.

Gordon rose to be the widely considered #3 prospect in the draft by draft day. It was reported that Paxson couldn't acquire Al Harrington because Larry Bird was demanding the #3 pick specifically to acquire Gordon and that Bird would not accept the #7 pick because he believed Gordon would be gone by that time. 

Deng at #7 was a no brainer. Unless you prefer Iggy, who would still fall within your definition of what you claim Paxson has limited himself to.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Pretty much all Paxson has done since getting the job is getting rid of questionable jib players in Rose, Crawford and Curry and bringing on yessir, NCAA pedigree type players (at least initially) like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon that have a proven track record of "playing in big games in a disciplined system."

That and bringing on a stern, college type disciplinarian as a coach.


You don't have to be a weatherman.....

(i'm not going to be able to ever out-argue you, even on something as crystal clear as this, since i don't have the lawyerly chops. i'm still shaking my head that you don't agree with me on this.)


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> MacBeth was insane, you know.


I don't think he is related to that Macbeth. His maternal grandfather was named John Macbeth, and Dayton University gives out an award in his name every year to a student in health and sport science. I've a friend who is a U of D graduate who wanted to win that award, but didn't. Heard about it way too much at the time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

narek said:


> I don't think he is related to that Macbeth. His maternal grandfather was named John Macbeth, and Dayton University gives out an award in his name every year to a student in health and sport science. I've a friend who is a U of D graduate who wanted to win that award, but didn't. Heard about it way too much at the time.


Lady MacBeth was one conniving woman.


(I think they're fictional characters)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Pretty much all Paxson has done since getting the job is getting rid of questionable jib players in Rose, Crawford and Curry and bringing on yessir players (at least initially) like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon.
> 
> That and bringing on a stern, college type disciplinarian as a coach.
> 
> ...


We were talking about the draft. You were saying that he "shied away" from a particular, and presumably better, approach in the draft by avoiding taking young, elite high school players. I'm saying that no such players existed at the time his picks came around to fairly say that he has "shied away" from that approach. 

Had Paxson had the opportunity to draft Dwight Howard, or LeBron James, or even Darko Milicic but then refused to in favor of a Ben Gordon or a Kirk Hinrich, then I'd agree with you. 

Absolutely right that Paxson has jettisoned the "questionable jib" players on this team such as E-Rob, Rose, Crawford (who admittedly is showing some signs of finally coming around), and Tim Thomas. 

But that is a completely different issue than the draft. Those guys were known commodities when sent away. He evaluated them as NBA players and then chose to go a different direction.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Lady MacBeth was one conniving woman.
> 
> 
> (I think they're fictional characters)


Based on real people, defamed. :biggrin: 

http://www.tartans.com/articles/famscots/macbethking.html

Of course, this has nothing to do with Are the Bulls a good basektball team. they are, sometimes, and sometimes they're not. I don't want to commit.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I guess I'll just have to search for the Howard vs Okafor question I seem to remember Paxson being asked.


That article I did post states that Paxson does not want to wait 4 years for players to develop.

Why would that not apply to the draft? How else does on acquire such a high-profile, talented, young player other than the draft?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Pretty much all Paxson has done since getting the job is getting rid of questionable jib players in Rose, Crawford and Curry and bringing on yessir, NCAA pedigree type players (at least initially) like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon that have a proven track record of "playing in big games in a disciplined system."
> 
> That and bringing on a stern, college type disciplinarian as a coach.
> 
> ...


And I am shaking my head trying to understand what you are complaining about Paxon's so-called strategy.

Your complaining of Paxon only make sense assuming the following two:
1) Were there more talend HS kid available for Paxon to pick? My answer: NO

2) Players Paxon picked are all jib, no talent: My answer: NO. They are mostly good jib and good talent.

And still your problem is?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> (i'm not going to be able to ever out-argue you, even on something as crystal clear as this, since i don't have the lawyerly chops. *i'm still shaking my head that you don't agree with me on this.*)


I think I haven't made it adequately clear what I'm disagreeing with you about. But I'm not quite sure how else to describe it. 

The basic point is that there is a difference between conduct and strategy. "Shied away from" implies two options of equal merit or the rejected option being of superior merit. The equal or superior option is then disregarded in furtherence of a pre-set "strategy".

I can't look at the options Paxson had when drafting and say that this is what happened. Had he taken Emeka Okafor, the consumate college player and super achiever, over Dwight Howard then I think we could say that Paxson has a specific strategy in place whereby he is willing to sacrifice truly elite but unpolished talent in the name of hard work and a good attitude. The same would be true if he'd selected Shane Battier over Eddy Curry back in Krause's day.

But he has never been confronted with such a choice on draft day. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Paxson has avoided, or "shied away" from this option.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I guess I'll just have to search for the Howard vs Okafor question I seem to remember Paxson being asked.
> 
> 
> That article I did post states that Paxson does not want to wait 4 years for players to develop.
> ...


Again, irrelevant point.

Did Paxon have a #1 pick to draft either of them?

Did you think that either Bobcat or Orland would give away their pick for whatever combination Paxon could come up with the roster we had back then?

So your point of bringing up sure picks like Howard and Okafor is?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> And I am shaking my head trying to understand what you are complaining about Paxon's so-called strategy.


Look at the standings.



I generally don't have any problems with the Paxson drafts, except for the Gordon pick.

The Deng move was his best move, IMO, although I'm not convinced he was trading *for* Deng. I think he'd would have been also happy with Luke Jackson at that spot.

Year 3. The team is bad. Last year the team was good. That's my complaint.

If you don’t think that jib had weighed very heavy on nearly every decision Paxson made, then once again, we’ll just have to disagree. Color me stunned.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Again, irrelevant point.
> 
> Did Paxon have a #1 pick to draft either of them?
> 
> ...



I'm not complaining about his actual picks, save for the Gordon pick.

I do feel troubled that he prefers Gordon over Deng, that he didn't *actually* trade for Deng, that he almost cut Duhon and that he looks for reasons to get rid of a center that can drop 29 points on another team while other teams are eager to pick that type of player up, then complain about "lacking size" and that he also has little trouble getting rid of an above average 6'6" SG that can also play the point, and then once again complain about the team "lacking size."

I'm also concerned that we limit ourselves by only going after established, squeaky clean jib players... of course with the coach he hired, who has done a pretty good job with what he's been given IMO, that's really the only way he can play it.


Once again, I'm complaining that the team is not good in year 3 of the Paxson regime and that its back to the lotto to save us, IMO.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you don’t think that jib had weighed very heavy on nearly every decision Paxson made, then once again, we’ll just have to disagree. Color me stunned.


With regards to trades, I think it's fair to say that Paxson favored jib over raw talent. He thought jib would turn this team around faster than mismatched talent that wouldn't buy into what Skiles is selling. Our pre-and post- trade records show ME that he was correct (except with the totally effed-up Curry situation).

I think Ron Cey's point, which I (not surprisingly) agree with, is that as far as the DRAFT goes, Paxson didn't have to choose between the two in any way, shape or form. He took guys with talent AND jib, and there weren't any people still on the board at his picks who had talent (or more accurately when discussing the draft, potential) but questionable jib who he clearly was afraid to take and are now outplaying our guys. So far, it has been borne out that Paxson took the best player available at his spots, with the possible exception of Gordon if he keeps struggling. Things could change as some of the young bucks develop, but so far I think his drafts have been a solid A grade.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I guess I'll just have to search for the Howard vs Okafor question I seem to remember Paxson being asked.
> 
> 
> That article I did post states that Paxson does not want to wait 4 years for players to develop.
> ...


If you find that quote, then that would change my mind about what I've written here. I don't recall such a quote about Howard. In fact, my recollection was that Paxson was fond of Howard.

The article you cited is dated a month after the draft lottery. Note that it references neither Howard nor Okafor as among the players the Bulls were looking at. The only High School players that would have been conceivably available to Chicago when written would have been Josh Smith, J.R. Smith and Livingston. Hard to argue that Al Harrington, Ben Gordon, or Luol Deng over those 3 wouldn't be the right way to go.

Maybe one could have made an argument for Livingston in the abstract. But with Hinrich coming off his strong rookie campaign, I don't recall hardly any Bulls fans pining for Livingston as a preferred option with the #3 pick. 

Were Howard an option at the time, I suspect that article would look much different. Unlike Krause passing on Amare for jibby, good college program Jay Williams, when he had Chandler and Curry already in place, I believe that Paxson had enough concerns with Curry and Chandler that he would have given Dwight Howard a very close look if he were an option.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Once again, I'm complaining about the Paxson mindset, described in the article I posted (not wanting to wait 4 years for player to develop, if ever).

That mindset will get you in trouble long term, IMO.

If at the crossroads of choosing between two players, like he will be with the lotto pick(s?) and FA acquisitions, this mindset troubled me.

The draft picks back up this mindset.

I'm not complaining about the actual picks, but the Paxson mindset, strategy, whatever you want to call it. 

Other than Gordon, I think Paxson's picks have been pretty good. I think he limits himself with his jib restriction. I'd like a player like Lamar Odom on the team. Based on what I've seen, I don't think Paxson would draft this type of player. RonCey seems to remember a quote about Josh Smith as well.... perhaps I'm confusing this one with what I thought he said about Howard. That quote would seemingly go in line with the argument I'm making.

But, based on his picks, quotes I've read, heck, nearly every action he's made, even sending Tim Thomas home while paying him, is that you to have a pretty high jib to play on this team. I think that limits the talent we can acquire.

Maybe I'm way off about how high this organization values jib and rightway/good program/play in big games. I have not seen anything to overturn this belief of mine. In fact, nearly every move Paxson has made confirms it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm also concerned that *we limit ourselves by only going after established, squeaky clean jib players*... of course with the coach he hired, who has done a pretty good job with what he's been given IMO, that's really the only way he can play it.


There it is, k4e. Thats the picture you paint that I disagree with. I've disagreed with it here in this thread because of the drafts and how they've played out. 

I disagree with it as a global concept because Paxson is often talking about the need for more talent and star power. Gutting the team of guys like Rose, Tim Thomas, Jamal Crawford, and Eddie Robinson does not mean that stars will be refused if not "squeaky clean jib players". 

Those 4 aren't now stars and weren't stars when sent away. I've seen nothing, absolutely nothing that would convince me that Paxson won't take a chance on a less than "yessir" type player if the championship calibur talent is there.

Is he going to pull an Isiah Thomas and pick up free agents like Qyntel Woods in the hopes of adding a little talent? No, he's not. We all know that.

But if he thought he could get an elite and effective player, he'd do it. Christ, he gave Kobe the full court press to come to Chicago during "the summer of rape". 

I think you've seen three physically talented players that you liked traded away and you've allowed that to color your view of the entirety of what Paxson will or won't do to improve this team. I'm trying to analyze the underlying facts supporting your theory, and I find them wanting.

I say that knowing that my own theories about what he would or wouldn't do are equally unproveable. We are both guessing. What I'm trying to do is look at the foundation for that guesswork.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

It needs to be an elite and effective player that can play for Scott Skiles, which limits the talent pool, IMO.

The fact that he hired and supports Skiles as he does, seems to indicate that Paxson is comfortable with this constraint.

Perhaps you don’t believe this is a constraint. I do.

Once again, we'll see where we're at a year from now.

And its not just that "i liked" the players Paxson gave away. I assume you mean Marshall, Crawford and Curry, since I didn't care for Rose very much. We were a winning team with Curry last season. Now we're not. No way to prove why, although its pretty well accepted that we "lack size." Marshall is playing OK for a winning team right now. He could have helped us last season, especially when Deng went down. These guys could help us. The Marshall dump pisses me off since it was a pure jib move, IMO. Jib over talent. It bothers me.

Kobe is a good point, although a well publicized wooing is a lot different than an actual signing. It would be interesting to see how Skiles would handle Kobe Bryant.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pax did say it would be "difficult" to draft a HSer. We already went through growing pains with the 3 Cs, after all.

Unfortunately, this whole season is growing pains. It's just hard to see if it's growing bigger or smaller.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Marshall was packaged together with Rose because Raptors wouldn't take Rose otherwise, I believe. Am I wrong? 

So Marshall wasn't exactly traded for the reason K4E stated (jib over talent) IMO.

Next example! (or Next Question? I should have said.)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Marshall was packaged together with Rose because Raptors wouldn't take Rose otherwise, I believe. Am I wrong?
> 
> So Marshall wasn't exactly traded for the reason K4E stated (jib over talent) IMO.
> 
> Next example! (or Next Question? I should have said.)


Marhsall, a talented, effective player, was sacrificed to make a jib move.

We accepted losing a player like Marshall to make a jib move.

Jib over talent.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> It needs to be an elite and effective player that can play for Scott Skiles, which limits the talent pool, IMO.
> 
> The fact that he hired and supports Skiles as he does, seems to indicate that Paxson is comfortable with this constraint.
> 
> *Perhaps you don’t believe this is a constraint*. I do.


I do believe that its a constraint if it exists. I don't, however, believe that there is such a constraint. 

NOTE: When you say "elite and effective" I actually would like to see a major commitment limited to that criteria. I think we all would. I assume, however, that you meant "elite and effective plus a sir yessir attitude". That is the constraint that I don't believe exists.



> Once again, we'll see where we're at a year from now.


And the year after that, as well.



> And its not just that "i liked" the players Paxson gave away. I assume you mean Marshall, Crawford and Curry, since I didn't care for Rose very much. We were a winning team with Curry last season. Now we're not. No way to prove why, although its pretty well accepted that we "lack size." Marshall is playing OK for a winning team right now. He could have helped us last season, especially when Deng went down. These guys could help us. The Marshall dump pisses me off since it was a pure jib move, IMO. Jib over talent. It bothers me.


First, you were complaining about all of this both before and during last season. Its not a new thing that just came about because we are struggling post-Curry. Last season you had a signature dedicated to showing how the teams these guys were traded to would improve while our team would flounder. 

Second, Marshall's trade *was* jib over talent, just not the way you describe it. It was Rose's talent for AD's jib. Marshall was an innocent bystander. 



> Kobe is a good point, although *a well publicized wooing is a lot different than an actual signing*.


I agree. One might even call such public wooing a hollow exercise.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> It needs to be an elite and effective player that can play for Scott Skiles, which limits the talent pool, IMO.


I want a team of elite and effective players.

Skiles was never a squeaky clean kind of guy. The time in jail, the DUI, doesn't scream sainthood.
Paxson, while a very squeaky clean kind of guy, played with, and loved playing with , the less than squeaky clean Pippen and Jordan. 

He's looking for people who work hard, just like Pippen and Jordan and most of the Bulls players of those championship years.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

So Paxon sacrificed a solid yet non-starter talent in Marshall to get rid of one of the worst jib player of NBA in Rose.

Unfortunate sacrifice, no doubt. Not a necessary sacrifice for the big picture.

But at the same time I was happy to get rid of Rose.

You are citing perfect example of adding by subtraction. Not necessarily perfect example of jib over talent.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So Paxon sacrificed a solid yet non-starter talent in Marshall to get rid of one of the worst jib player of NBA in Rose.


And yet, Jalen Rose, jib and all, was good enough to be the highest EFF player on an Eastern Conference Champion.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet, Jalen Rose, jib and all, was good enough to be the highest EFF player on an Eastern Conference Champion.


For one year before it get to his head so Pacer drop him like nothing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet, Jalen Rose, jib and all, was good enough to be the highest EFF player on an Eastern Conference Champion.


3.5 years earlier.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I do believe that its a constraint if it exists. I don't, however, believe that there is such a constraint.
> 
> NOTE: When you say "elite and effective" I actually would like to see a major commitment limited to that criteria. I think we all would. I assume, however, that you meant "elite and effective plus a sir yessir attitude". That is the constraint that I don't believe exists.


That's what I meant by "can play for Scott Skiles." I guess we disagree about that as well.





> First, you were complaining about all of this both before and during last season. Its not a new thing that just came about because we are struggling post-Curry. Last season you had a signature dedicated to showing how the teams these guys were traded to would improve while our team would flounder.


You are right. I was expecting what is happening this year, last year. Now that Curry is gone and Chandler is not as effective, its all coming to light, IMO.

We can all see what a motivated VC can do in NJ. He was not motivated with the Raptors last season. Bad jib. He's now the main man (staggering PER of 23.8) on a division leading team.




> Second, Marshall's trade *was* jib over talent, just not the way you describe it. It was Rose's talent for AD's jib. Marshall was an innocent bystander.


I disagree. It was a panicked, take Marshall if you have to whatever just get this bad jib off my team I don't know what to do with it trade, IMO.



Bernstein is right now complaining on the SCORE - 670 Chicago about the Bulls (only for 1 minute).

Saying the Bulls need to go out and get talent. Using the word talent. Talent. Direct quote "If you're going to be a college type team, you have to play like a college team." Talking about how last night's game in Charlotte was a sleepy NBA regular season game that the maximum effort college Bulls need to win, given the way they are structured.

I know I'm not the only person who feels the way I do. It just seems to be a minority opinion on this board I guess.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> 3.5 years earlier.


You are right, but I would think a grown man's jib would not change so suddenly in such a short time.

It could be the fat contract. Right now, when I see Rose play, he's nothing like that player who looked so good for the Pacers. He seems like he's lost a step or two or three. Its not *just* a jib thing, IMO.


Also, when we acquired Rose, jib and all, even giving up Miller and Artest, we instantly became a better team. Not great of course, but better. It was noticeable.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Also, when we acquired Rose, jib and all, even giving up Miller and Artest, we instantly became a better team. Not great of course, but better. It was noticeable.


On offense, yes. On defense? Not so much. Before the trade, we typically lost 95-85 or so. After the trade it was 105-95. That's my recollection. Artest and Miller were playing very inspired defense around midseason before the trade (remember the Shaq-fu game? fun stuff), but the offense was pretty brutal because there was no playmaker, which Jalen did for a while after coming over.

Jalen embraced the idea of being the erstwhile centerpiece of the Bulls for the rest of that season and part of the next, but his attitude and dedication slid, while he implicitly pointed the blame at the rest of the team, mostly.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> <b>You are right, but I would think a grown man's jib would not change so suddenly in such a short time.</b>
> 
> It could be the fat contract. Right now, when I see Rose play, he's nothing like that player who looked so good for the Pacers. He seems like he's lost a step or two or three. Its not *just* a jib thing, IMO.
> 
> ...


Uhhh, I thought Pacers traded him because of bad jib. Am I wrong? 

It wasn't like he was all good jib guy before we got him and turned into bad one.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> That's what I meant by "can play for Scott Skiles." I guess we disagree about that as well.


I don't know who can or can't play for Skiles. I can't disagree or agree. I'm talking about Paxson and the "squeaky clean jib" mandate you have lashed him to.



> You are right. I was expecting what is happening this year, last year. Now that Curry is gone and Chandler is not as effective, its all coming to light, IMO.


No you weren't. You were expecting the teams that those players got traded to to do better than Chicago. It didn't happen last year and it isn't happening this year. That is what your signature was dedicated to proving. 



> We can all see what a motivated VC can do in NJ. He was not motivated with the Raptors last season. Bad jib. He's now the main man (staggering PER of 23.8) on a division leading team.


Vince Carter is really good. 



> I disagree. It was a panicked, take Marshall if you have to whatever just get this bad jib off my team I don't know what to do with it trade, IMO.


Okay. Maybe you shouldn't call it "the Marshall dump" when its obvious that it was Rose who was being tossed. 



> Bernstein is right now complaining on the SCORE - 670 Chicago about the Bulls (only for 1 minute).
> 
> Saying the Bulls need to go out and get talent. Using the word talent. Talent.


He sounds like Paxson. 



> Direct quote "If you're going to be a college type team, you have to play like a college team." Talking about how last night's game in Charlotte was a sleepy NBA regular season game that the maximum effort college Bulls need to win, given the way they are structured.
> 
> I know I'm not the only person who feels the way I do. It just seems to be a minority opinion on this board I guess.


Damn dude, even I agree with you about that part. I think almost everyone on this board agrees on that point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> On offense, yes. On defense? Not so much. Before the trade, we typically lost 95-85 or so. After the trade it was 105-95. That's my recollection. Artest and Miller were playing very inspired defense around midseason before the trade (remember the Shaq-fu game? fun stuff), but the offense was pretty brutal because there was no playmaker, which Jalen did for a while after coming over.
> 
> Jalen embraced the idea of being the erstwhile centerpiece of the Bulls for the rest of that season and part of the next, but his attitude and dedication slid, while he implicitly pointed the blame at the rest of the team, mostly.


Before Jalen joined the team we were 12-40 (23% winning percentage).

We acquired Jalen, immediately went on a 3 game winning streak and finished the season 9-21 (32%).

Like I said, not great, but better.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Before Jalen joined the team we were 12-40 (23% winning percentage).
> 
> We acquired Jalen, immediately went on a 3 game winning streak and finished the season 9-21 (32%).
> 
> Like I said, not great, but better.


Fair enough. I vividly remember the pre-trade team starting to put together some good games and thinking they were about to turn a corner. I was cautiously optimistic about the Rose trade and at first he was everything we were hoping he'd be.

anyway, that's getting off-topic.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> I don't know who can or can't play for Skiles. I can't disagree or agree. I'm talking about Paxson and the "squeaky clean jib" mandate you have lashed him to.


But Skiles is an extension of Paxson. By hiring Skiles, and supporting him as he does, even to the extent of paying a guy a MAX salary to sit at home and not aggravate the coach, Paxson and Skiles are arm in arm.



Ron Cey said:


> No you weren't. You were expecting the teams that those players got traded to to do better than Chicago. It didn't happen last year and it isn't happening this year. That is what your signature was dedicated to proving.


I was expecting the Bulls to be like they are now (bad) and for Vince Carter to be Vince Carter for the Raptors. I figured one of those two teams (Knicks, Raptors) would be .500 and make the playoffs. I underestimated Duhon and how effective Deng would be right away. Oh well. Vince is the type of bad jib player that we may need to win games. Last season was a perfect storm type event, IMO. The usual NBA weather patterns are now in effect again this season. 




> Damn dude, even I agree with you about that part. I think almost everyone on this board agrees on that point.


When someone uses the term "college team," how do you interpret that? What does it mean for a NBA team to be structured like a “college team?” Its not just youth, IMO.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> When someone uses the term "college team," how do you interpret that? What does it mean for a NBA team to be structured like a “college team?” Its not just youth, IMO.


No, not just youth. Role players. No mega-stars. A team concept, etc. Like the Bulls. We all know this team is mediocre in the talent department. We believe that with opinions based on varying degrees of mediocrity, but mediocrity nonetheless. I don't think anyone is dense enough to say this team is extremely talented, nor that it is woefully lacking in talent. 

Its somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. And when you are somewhere in the middle and base success on execution, you need to play with effort and focus to be a playoff team. 

When this team was playing with effort and focus, they were on pace to be a playoff team. Now that they aren't playing with effort and focus, they aren't on pace to make the playoffs. You'll get no dispute from me. Nor from hardly anyone else, I'd suspect. And I include John Paxson and Scott Skiles in that group.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I certainly voted that we aren't very good. But OK, instead of talking about how we got bad, how about a little bit of focus on how to get better.

What's the prescription for this team?

*First, what are the problems? Can't fix them if you don't see them.*

*1. Size.* Everyone conceeds that, it's certainly no secret at all.

*2. Depth.* Less obvious, but still an obvious problem. In addition to losing Eddy and AD, Harrington and Pike have fallen off the map compared to last year and Basden has not earned the sort of minutes Pike and Griffin got last year. Noc was great depth last year but he's forced into a different role at the 3 leaving no depth at the 3.

*3. Hope.* This will be the contraversial one, I guess. Even scrappy, jibby players don't do all that great if they think they haven't got a chance. They play differently. For some of you older guys, it's a generational thing- talking to my dad the other day, he never played a game he thought he'd lose. I've never felt that way, and my sense of guys around my age is they don't think that way either. That doesn't mean they aren't trying, but I think there's some definite sense of resignation and worse, expectation things no going go their way. For the current guys to maximize their own talents, they need to recapture some team _confidence and chemistry_. 

_Confidence_ in terms of the NBA means individual confidence, yes, but it also means confidence in having a team around you that if you do your job, you've got a shot. Last year, by virtue of our size, depth, and balanced roster, we achieved that. This year and in prior years we didn't have that critical mass of NBA players at the right positions. The sort of confidence I'm talking about is evidenced in the irritating tendency of guys to flock to championship teams to get rings, and to see good teams as good destinations. That's irritating, but it also reveals a truth. NBA players know that they don't have a shot if they're playing on teams with bad mixes of talent. Our guys, by and large, aren't a bunch of star-****ers, but they know this too, and it's frustrating for NBA players. It leads them to a whole host of bad things - overcompensating, selfish play, quitting. Even good players can go bad in bad situations.

_Chemistry_ is part of that. This team lost two guys that brought, in very different ways, positive energy and enthusiasm to the locker room. Curry was a goofball who constantly ****ed stuff up, but he did work and was positive, happy and enthusiastic guy who everyone from KC Johnston to Duhon, to Skiles, to Kirk and Lou sounded like they genuinely liked and would miss at various points. There's no one on the team now that gets talked about like that. AD was enthusiastic no matter what, and brought some toughness that definitely wasn't present anywhere else on the roster. Perhaps more importantly, he was a guy who could be on-board with the coaches but also have the stature to be independent and suggest things to players without being a coaches-pet and to coaches without sounding like a malcontent. There's no one on the team that can do that.

*4. The future.* So far, these problems are mostly problems in the context of this season. To varying degrees, many people, seemingly Pax himself expected some short-term step back. If it's not a very big step back or its occuring for short-run reasons (like injuries), it doesn't seem to affect the long-run too much. However, sucking in the short run can have long-run negative effects. It's hard to fairly judge players on a mis-matched team. That increases the chance we assume a guy can't play well enough just because we're doing poorly (eg Elton Band, Brad Miller, Ron Artest). It's also possible that the good chemistry and scrappieness of our guys gets permanently lost if they endure too much losing (that was my fear last year, though it turned out that Deng, Duhon (especally and Gordon (especially) were much better than expected and helped balance it out. Losing itself is poison that leads to more losing.

The last point is why something needs to be done. If things don't get corrected, there's a danger the long-run plan gets messed up.

--------------

So what's available without giving up much?

Free Agents: Spree, Glen Robinson, Curtis Borchardt, George Lynch, Jerome Moiso
Guys we could maybe get for a second round pick and no cap hit down the line: Mikki Moore, Kelvin Cato, Michael Olowokandi?

Guys who will cost picks but not major cap room: Primoz Brezec (maybe), Melvin Ely, Chris Wilcox, Steven Hunter

Guys who won't cost much but cap room: Rasho Nestorovic, Mark Blount, Raef LaFrentz, Marc Jackson, Kenny Thomas, Brian Skinner



------

Giving it some thought, I'm not sure this team would be hurt by adding Latrell Spreewell. He's not a loafer like Thomas. Every guy I've ever heard talk about him says he's a good teammate who plays hard. Unlike the popular opinion here, I think that's most all that matters to Skiles. I'm less sure he can still play though. He looked over the hill and slow last year, so I don't know that he helps, but he might be fresh if he doesn't have to play so much.

Then offer Harrington, who we aren't using much and Pike for Marc Jackson. I'm pretty sure Harrington's deal is guaranteed for next year, so the net effect of adding Jackson is only about $1.5M. Jackson is a guy that at least commands some offensive attention.

With the free roster spot, add George Lynch because he's the closest thing out there to what Griffin brought. Good defender, good locker room guy by and large. Can't hurt to have that.

1- Hinrich, Duhon
2- Spree, Gordon
3- Deng, Noc, Lynch
4- Chandler, Songaila
5- Jackson, Sweetney

That looks like a more balanced roster. Spree is obviously a risk, but it's not that big of a risk. If he came in here and played I don't see how it'd do anything but help. If he didn't we could always cut the cord. Jackson isn't a savior, but he can put his big body on guys and he can provide some interior offense. We desperately need both of those things.

Add it all together, and these changes wouldn't cost a lot but might provide useful stopgaps (as opposed to no stopgaps at all, which we have now).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ely or Brezec could help our team right away, IMO.

Which one would be easier to aquire. Ely? I've liked what I've seen from him.

Would they want our first?


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

It has been posted in another thread, but I like ACE's trade idea of Gordon TT and our #1 for Pierce/ Blount. That's a trade that works for us. Like I said before, I think Boston would ask for both picks in which case I would ask for thier pick in return.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

dsouljah9 said:


> It has been posted in another thread, but I like ACE's trade idea of Gordon TT and our #1 for Pierce/ Blount. That's a trade that works for us. Like I said before, I think Boston would ask for both picks in which case I would ask for thier pick in return.



I dont think Boston would want Ben but maybe Kirk,TT, and both picks


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Before we traded for Rose, we were a 15 win team.

In Rose's only full-season with the team, we were a 30 win team. About what we are now without him.

EDIT:

Nobody can say for sure that Rose couldn't play for Skiles. Skiles played guys who couldn't play much D (if that's the so-called gripe). Penny Hardaway could play for Skiles, so I think Rose could too.

Pax never game the two (Skiles, Rose) the chance.

As for Marshall, he was cap filler so Pax could get that extra good jib guy, JYD, in the deal.


Your honors, your honor. (That's a caddyshack joke)


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I refuse to believe that Marshall was added to that deal so Paxon can get good jib guy JYD like DaBulls satated.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*Why does the jib v. balla debate have to be so polarizing*? 

Why are there assumptions that it has to be one way or the other?

Why does Paxson's fans admitting he may not be the best GM in the world have to mean that he isn't better than Krause?
Why do so many people who think the Curry trade was a bad trade also think that that means the Crawford trade was a bad trade too?
Why does there always have to be a next scapegoat (was Crawford and Curry is now Chandler to some and Gordon to some) to make sure that blame never goes to the immortal top of this organization. *Remember Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said: The Buck stops here.* Does it not stop at the GMs desk WHOEVER that GM may be?
Why does the contention that the Bulls would be worse off with Curry have to mean that Curry is better off without the Bulls (cause he sure aint)?
Why is relying on capspace and the draft as if they are self-fulfilling prophecies of automatic improvement ok now when it wasn't ok in 2000 (when the draft class and free agent class were eerily similar to the classes this next summer)?

Maybe I just don't know the history of the poster who started the thread but it seemed like a legitimate question. Why was his question countered with "Well Krause wouldn't be doing any better" ? Can not his moves be questioned separate of Krause? Paxson has not made splashes as big as Krauses (Pippen for Polynice and Rodman for Perdue) and he hasn't made collosal F ups as bad as Krauses (Brand for Chandler and Miller being thrown into the trade with psycho to the Pacers). All that tells me is maybe Paxson just doesn't take risks like Krause. He doesn't roll the dice. When you go for the big score sometimes you will hit the jackpot (Pippen, Rodman) and sometimes you'll crap out. And when you put one chip on the table every time you roll (just about every Paxson decision) odds are you'll never win big just like you'll never lose big. Both GMs strategies have drawbacks and payoffs. Not every jib player is going to cut it just like its not a great idea to trade every baller. Just like past mistakes with high schoolers doesn't mean drafting any high schooler is a mistake (unless you believe that to be the case then that will be what it means to you). 

Paxson has been a good GM. Unfortunately in this league you can do everything right or most things right and have everything go wrong. Look at Krause. Who thought drafting Jay Williams was a bad idea? Could Krause have ever known that it was? Had he not drafted Williams the crucifixion of the man would have been earth shattering. Imagine a world where everything goes down just as it did except Eddy Curry's heart is healthy and Jay Williams doesn't shatter his lower body doing motorcycle stunts in downtown Chicago. I think Krause's decisions end up not looking so bad by 2003-04. 

Just like you can imagine a world where Paxson never becomes a victim of his conservative mindset in the Curry deal. Although just about every person I know in this city who is saying that Paxson had no choice were the same people that were saying BEFORE Curry's episode that we'd be better off trading him for a bad of chips I don't believe Pax lets him go without the heart ordeal. And if that's the case we're still the team we were last year. So you could just as easily argue that Pax did most things right and look at the situation he fell victim to. But since people who hate Jerry Krause because he was fat won't accept that logic with him I'm forced to take a closer look at Paxson's decisions.

The very good:

*Crawford trade*: Why do people who think that the Curry trade was a bad idea almost universally think two things? That the Crawford trade was a bad idea and that just because it was pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that the Bulls would be worse off without Curry that also means that Curry would be better off without the Bulls. Crawford sucked. Curry proved that despite his weaknesses he could play on a winning team if complimented by players who excelled at his weaknesses. Crawford has offered no such proof. He's garbage period. He has the talent. He doesn't shy away from hard work. He just didn't put it together fast enough. It's one thing to wait on a high schooler. It's something entirely different to be waiting for a guy to be 25 years old before he starts to show signs of putting it all together. Now, if Crawford supplied anything as deadly and rare as Curry's post scoring or presence, then that would be one thing. 6'5" tweeners can't afford to be as inconsistent in their weaknesses as Eddy Curry or even Tyson Chandler. Not to mention the lightbulb hasn't gone off in his head. It's the same thing that troubles Kobe Bryant and keeps him from, in the words of Shaquille O'neal "being better than me, better than Mike, better than everyone." Now I don't agree with Shaq on Kobe having any chance to be better than Jordan, nor do I think Crawford has a ceiling that is very high at all. But he could at least reach his ceiling if he only let himself, and much like Starbury he doesn't let himself. Gordon could be Joe Dumars if he let himself. Everything about his game tells you that, but he just doesn't. This is Crawford's biggest liability. What he will let himself be. 

*Rose trade*: Major move. Awesome acquisition of jib. I think you need jib and ballers to win in the NBA. We had ballers. Too many. So does that mean you trade them ALL? No. But at this point we still hadn't unloaded too many of our ballers and we got back some much needed jib. Rose had become a legend in his own mind. So I don't buy the efficiency argument. Antonio Davis was as key as anyone last year. It was Davis' toughness that:

1. Allowed Eddy Curry to suck at rebounding and be mediocre at defense and yet we still rebounded and AD picked up his slack on defense
2. Allowed Tyson Chandler to come off the bench and furthermore AD would put his body on the other teams best offensive post threat. This allowed Chandler to fly-swat instead of having to serve as an anchor. Tyson is a great defender when he has freedom to roam and pack peoples shots. He's not good when he has to put his knee down behind a big man's back and hold his ground.
3. Allowed the Bulls to play free of fear. Don't kid yourselves. The whole league saw what AD did to Brenda and nobody wanted a piece of that. He chased down a 300 pound man like Haywood was a girl. The Bulls officially had an enforcer. Other teams knew that a fistfight meant the possibility that AD could go Kermit Washington upside your head. I think the lack of that presence has hurt the Bulls more than anything. 
4. Allowed Noce to be a backup small forward and not a wannabe Antonio Davis.

*Deng pick*: That was an awesome pickup. I like Luol Deng. I don't think he's Scottie Pippen like some people but I like him. He's a player who illustrates what most of our jibby players are not. He is a combination of jib AND ballerness. Hinrich is just jib, maybe 80%. Gordon can cite his workouts all he wants in the paper and he's mostly baller. Deng is pretty good at being both. There is a reason that the 1992 Bulls would beat this years team by 50. The 1992 Bulls didn't have much post presence either. Certainly not enough to kill or destroy us. They had jib AND ballaness or flavor or whatever is the polar opposite. Jordan was both. So was Pippen. SO was Grant. If you had ridiculous talent and not enough glue they'd kill you (Heat - Rice, Smith, Seikaly). If you were all glue and lacked the top flight talent (Knicks - aside from Ewing not a very athletic team) they demolish you. Luol Deng certainly could have played for those teams. Hinrich couldn't. He's really Paxson without the killer jumpshot. Gordon couldn't either, at least not much more than Craig Hodges. Chandler could have probably just cause Bill Cartwright was so old. But Horace Grant to me was better as a second year player than Chandler is now. Much better. 

*Duhon pick*: I was jumping up and down in my living room. Chris Duhon. The NUMBER 1 PLAYER IN THE NATION IN HIGH SCHOOL. Everyone forgets that. Coming out of high school he had as much talent as anyone and yet he put that aside and went to Jibschool for 4 years while he let Jay Williams and Redick/Deng be the scorers. Anybody who watched Chris when Duke's national championship hopes were in danger of being snuffed out by Maryland knows that Chris has talent. To me his rise is no surprise. He'll continue to rise. GMs simply can't find players with his talent who are willing to play the point the way he plays it anymore. He's a true quarterback of the offense and a player who cuts off spots on D. Second best player on the Bulls after Deng. 

Decisions falling somewhere between good and bad:

*Hinrich pick*: I'll give it a good. I like Hinrich's game. I don't think he's as mediocre as Crawford's alliance does just like I don't think he's as [insert cheesy adjective here] as the jib-only crowd thinks he is. If you think Hinrich is more than average you probably think that a frontcourt of Pryzbilla and Chandler is worth anything. Just like if you think he's less than average you probably think a frontcourt of Curry and Swift is "sick yo." For a second year player he was very good. As his career goes on players his age will head higher at a faster rate than he does. Solid. The kind of player who can be dangerous as your fourth best player (just like Paxson).

*Scott Skiles signing*: Scott both very good and very bad. He's very good at installing the jib into a team that doesn't have any. Give him a talented team lacking discipline and he'll bring them up to speed better than anyone! Give him that same team when they are up to speed and players will tune him out faster than anyone!

*Gordon pick*: Gordon is what he is. Undersized. A shooter who can get hot. A player who could be Joe Dumars if he only decided to play like Joe Dumars. Paxson could have done better and could have done worse. I'd have taken J.R. Smith if I could justify the pick being so high. Maybe traded down and taken Smith or taken Iguodala. If someone bumps that in a year and it looks stupid so be it. 

The very bad:

*The entire second round in the 2003 draft*: WTF? Matt Bonner, Mario Austin and Tommy Smith. Ok. He should have just traded the 3 picks to Haywoode Workman to get him to come out of retirement along with Enis Whatley and Herb Williams. 

*Scottie Pippen*: I love Scottie and Luol Deng has 0 chances in 100 of ever being Scottie Pippen but that decision was just god awful. We really would have been better off with Ira Newble.

*Curry trade*: It wasn't so much that it happened. It's what we got in return. Michael Sweetney is just a short fat Eddy Curry with a dash of Marcus Fizer thrown into the pot. Is he more solid than Curry in areas such as rebounding and the like? Yes. Did we already have a ton of the things that Sweetney is stronger than Eddy in last year? Yes. I think Antonio Davis is better than Michael Sweetney. I think that will be true in 3 years as old as AD will be. So you ended up giving Curry up for a lottery pick (ok, like the lottery hasn't been getting dramatically weaker since about the early 90s when players started leaving earlier and earlier, with rare exceptions like 2003 and 1997 where the draft quality spiked upward) a pick swap and Tim Thomas. Tim Thomas doesn't exist as far as the Bulls are concerned. So you traded Eddy for a lottery pick. Great. I guess if Paxson picks a player who solves our downlow size problem and gives us an offensive threat that keeps teams from focusing on Ben Gordon (who scores much better as the "Sleeper" than "the man"), spaces the floor for our jibbish players who don't excel at creating their own shot, and puts a big enough body behind true centers so as to allow Tyson to roam freely then great. But I'll give Paxson the opportunity to make that pick and see how it works out before I assume he's already made it and it's a sure thing to work out. 

Eddy Curry isn't dead yet. And until he dies he'd have given us a lot more than what we're getting now. I really don't know how someone comes to the conclusion that you're going to be competitive when you put Michael Sweetney and Andres Nocioni in the exact roles occupied by Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis last year. Now people will say well Curry is really lighting it up in New York. I never thought he would. Curry needs lots of jib, hustle and defense around him for his weaknesses to be neutralized. Analyzing him in a vacuum as an individual is a mistake. He needs Chris Duhon and Kirk Hinrich and Andres Nocioni as much as they need him. It was really harmonious. Eddy sucked donkey balls as an individual and yet we still won because he provided two things that we are severely lacking without him: size and low post scoring. I don't care if he averaged 2 RPG and couldn't pass out of a double team. Don't confuse effort with results. He gave us the yin (along with Gordan and Deng who also gave us the jib) while players like Hinrich, Davis, Duhon and Nocioni gave us the yan. You need balance to win in the NBA. Just like you aren't winning with two players who are 6'8" in the backcourt you aren't winning with a 6'8" center and Tyson Chandler either. 

Eddy Curry is not a good basketball player. He just happened to be good at what the Bulls were bad at and bad at what the Bulls were good at. So it worked out. Antonio Davis was the thing that really kills me. Eddy and Davis allowed us not to have to worry about Chandler's lack of bulk. AD was the main defensive post presence and Curry was the main offensive presence and size down low. This allowed Chandler and Gordon to be the defensive and offensive "closers" so to speak and come off the bench fresh to attack other teams who were already worn out by our hustle. Chandler and Gordon are unreal as bench players. As starters they are below average. 

I would not have traded Eddy Curry. I would have at the very most just let him play for the Q.O. If he leaves for nothing so what. Players do that and you move on. I don't consider Michael Sweetney much of anything and lottery pick smottery pick. Only Elton Brand and Luol Deng have been even "high impact" players as lottery picks for the Bulls since Horace Grant! There is one guy Lemarcus Aldridge who even has the chance to replace what we lost in Eddy Curry OR Antonio Davis. And who knows. Maybe Eddy Curry doesn't die and things get patched up or maybe he realizes that he isn't getting more money to leave Chicago than he would get to stay. I think these probabilities are equally as high as we'll get Lemarcus Aldridge and he'll solve everything. I'm not *drooling* over that as a plan to save the Bulls. Sorry. 

The lesson is when you have balance and a winning formula in the NBA don't F with it because you don't get it back as easily as many people seem to think. You let it ride it's course. The Bulls were too good last year and threatened to be too good into the future to dare think they could take it apart without letting it take itself apart. If it takes itself apart what's the worst that happens? Oh yeah you end up in the lottery where we're going anyway!

*In conclusion Paxson is no different from the middle 60-70% of GMs in this league. Guys who rarely make the bad pick going for the gusto, can always make the good pick if its slapped right in front of them, are good GMs who inevitably will live or die by who they are and not what Jerry West would do in the same situation (i.e. they'll shy from even the good decision if it means reinventing who they are and denying their own instincts). He's probably going to be better than Krause but he's probably not going to make the pick or sign the player that leads us to serious contention for a championship unless that player is the same one that most good conservative GMs in the league would take/sign if in the same situation (i.e. he were to end up with the #1 pick in a Lebron/Howard/Oden draft). When he drafts he isn't going to kill you unless he's put in a position where his pick nets no good possibilities just like he's not gonna steal the show by picking a Scottie Pippen type (the kind of guy who gets the "who is that?" reaction when he's drafted and turns out to be a hall of famer) unless most GMs in his shoes would know that that player was the no-brainer. 

The truth falls somewhere between the people who think he should be executed so that Crawford-mania can come back to Chicago and those who think that you could write a book on how to be the next Red Auerbach if you simply stole Paxson's journal. 

Right now this team is god awful and it was built with the ardent approval of most Bulls fans. So let's hold off on assuming that Krause would have done worse or that Paxson will do better tomorrow and maybe just start to ask the hard questions.*

*Chandler contract*: Terrible. Why was Tyson not asked to go out and get an offer like Curry and Duhon were? If he was we could have signed him for 8 million a year. Where are the legions of people who think he's a center now?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Not just only Size. 


In addition to absence of a decent set of C/PF, our players are simply afraid of physical abuse and scared getting an injury. 

IMO, we need Charles Oakley or one of his close relatives, even on a wheelchair. Or we can get Mike Tyson as a FA, and place him in the paint, when we need to change a facial expression on RW's face.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Bulls96 said:


> Not just only Size.
> 
> 
> In addition to absence of a decent set of C/PF, our players are simply afraid of physical abuse and scared getting an injury.
> ...


Great post. Yes he did!


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> *Why does the jib v. balla debate have to be so polarizing*?
> 
> Why are there assumptions that it has to be one way or the other?
> 
> ...



Wow. You know how to make a flashy entrance. Hope you post here more often.

Cool name too.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Great post. Yes he did!


Thank you my friend. I am glad that not alone .


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I dont think Boston would want Ben but maybe Kirk,TT, and both picks


I'd have no problem with giving up Kirk and both picks if we get Bostons' in return(which is still a hich pick). Duhon is a better point guard than Hinrich IMHO and would improve not having to guard bigger players. A

Duhon

Pierce

Deng

Chandler

Blount

line-up is still solid.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Wow. You know how to make a flashy entrance. Hope you post here more often.
> 
> Cool name too.


I agree. *** kickingly good.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Wow, wow, wow! Pippenatorade! Outstanding post!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I enjoyed your post too Pippenatorade and welcome to the board. I have to admit I did skim a little bit of it because it was very long but it was interesting to hear your views and I agree with much of what you had to say. I disagree with a few points but there really is no room for debate about it as everyone will see what they want to see. I believe Crawford and Curry are both much better basketball players than you portray them as. I definitley see your point about Curry having certain skills that complemented the Bulls well but I think, in time, other aspects of his game will come along. We are seeing it already with him rebounding well and giving better defensive effort in NY. Unfortunately he is still not in game shape and battling nagging injuries. I don't understand why you think Crawford isn't a good player. He is certainly showing this year that he is capable of maturing and playing the right way as evidenced by him shooting more free throws than any Bull and by having more free throw attempts than 3pt attempts. I beleive, as I have said ad nausem perhaps, that Crawford will indeed be a special player as will Curry. I think your analysis doesn't really take into account their youth or developmental arc. I don't want to lump the Curry & Crawford trades together but I confess that I am sometimes guilty of that because Crawford and Curry were my favorite Bulls and they both were dealt in what I consider to be bad trades. Anyway, welcome to the board and go crazy man!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I enjoyed your post too *Pippenatorade* and welcome to the board.



i enjoyed it too. but rather than saying "welcome" i say "welcome back"...

:smilewink


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i enjoyed it too. but rather than saying "welcome" i say "welcome back"...
> 
> :smilewink


He must have . . . . . tied one hand . . . . . behind his back . . . . to avoid . . . . . overuse of . . . . . the five-period ellipsis.

But it's a good post, nevertheless.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

John Paxon is racist.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> The entire second round in the 2003 draft: WTF? Matt Bonner, Mario Austin and Tommy Smith



Appointed merely weeks before the draft, Paxson didn';t have time to prepare for these second rounders. He was a Bulls raido guy, let's not forget. He did not afford much time for scouting. He got "his guy", with Kirk. For the other three, he had to rely strongly, albeit not completely, on his scouting team. Let's also not forget he traded Matt Bonner (and got back the pick used on Chris Duhon), and that neither Smith or Austin have never missed a shot in their NBA careers.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> Appointed merely weeks before the draft, Paxson didn';t have time to prepare for these second rounders. He was a Bulls raido guy, let's not forget. He did not afford much time for scouting. He got "his guy", with Kirk. For the other three, he had to rely strongly, albeit not completely, on his scouting team. Let's also not forget he traded Matt Bonner (and got back the pick used on Chris Duhon), and that neither Smith or Austin have never missed a shot in their NBA careers.


And chap what are your thoughts on the other 199/200ths of my total thoughts on Paxson? My contention is that he is hardly the Warren Buffett of GMs. He is more like the average employee who gives his money to a risk-averse mutual fund and always takes the safe pick. He's not the kind of GM that takes you to the championship. Why is Jerry West in Memphis, Tennessee of all places and here Chicago is, the 3rd largest market in the NBA, with a GM far inferior to West.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> And chap what are your thoughts on the other 199/200ths of my total thoughts on Paxson?



I skim read it cos I'm tired. I'll come back to it at a later date.


I will say though, that for a non-risk taker, trading future considerations for Luol Deng was pretty ballsy. And it bloody well worked.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> I will say though, that for a non-risk taker, trading future considerations for Luol Deng was pretty ballsy. And it bloody well worked.


Not if he believed in the product he was putting on the court. 

The ballsy (lucky?) part was thinking Deng would be there, if that’s what he even thought.

Otherwise we'd be cursing out Luke Jackson.

We were very, very close to having Wilks to Jackson instead of Duhon to Deng. Then we'd be in real trouble.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not if he believed in the product he was putting on the court.
> 
> The ballsy (lucky?) part was thinking Deng would be there, if that’s what he even thought.
> 
> ...


Question? 

Why does it seem like (and this isn't directed at you) Paxson's supporters think that if he makes a good decision it's because well, he's John Paxson the great GM; and if he makes a bad one, there must be a justification? Whereas his detractors seem to think if he fails it's because he's not as good as everyone thinks and if he succeeds on a given decision it's luck?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Question?
> 
> Why does it seem like (and this isn't directed at you) Paxson's supporters think that if he makes a good decision it's because well, he's John Paxson the great GM; and if he makes a bad one, there must be a justification? Whereas his detractors seem to think if he fails it's because he's not as good as everyone thinks and if he succeeds on a given decision it's luck?


Everyone has their own way of looking at things.

I'm not quite saying Paxson was lucky to get Deng... but be certainly could have been.

I'm not sure it was reasonable to expect Deng to be there @ #7. But it worked out OK.

We don't know what was going on in his mind. He was seemingly high on Jackson or Deng with that pick, and Deng was predicted by many to be gone before #7 rolled around.

The best player on our team fell to #7, and that’s how he joined our team. Thank goodness it happened. Now lets try not to dump him for average to below average NBA scrap.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Everyone has their own way of looking at things.
> 
> I'm not quite saying Paxson was lucky to get Deng... but be certainly could have been.
> 
> ...


LOL! Joy to meet you


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Not if he believed in the product he was putting on the court.
> 
> The ballsy (lucky?) part was thinking Deng would be there, if that’s what he even thought.
> 
> ...





:banghead:



I quit already. Take the moral victory.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Question?
> 
> Why does it seem like (and this isn't directed at you) Paxson's supporters think that if he makes a good decision it's because well, he's John Paxson the great GM; and if he makes a bad one, there must be a justification? Whereas his detractors seem to think if he fails it's because he's not as good as everyone thinks and if he succeeds on a given decision it's luck?


It is a good philosophical question and too deep for a New Year day 

However, IMO, the right answer should be directly related to the team's success and Fans satisfaction.

We certainly can quantify the amount of bad and good decisions (as a ratio with some sort of coeffs), but the most important part is, to select the time duration when these evaluations will take place.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not if he believed in the product he was putting on the court.
> 
> The ballsy (lucky?) part was thinking Deng would be there, if that’s what he even thought.
> 
> ...


Why do you always bring up Luke Jackson and Mike Wilks as a way to discredit Paxson's acquisitions of Deng and Duhon? 

How do you know for sure Paxson was going to take Luke Jackson? I know he brought him back to the Berto Center for a second workout... but he did the same thing with Iguodala. The fact is Paxson had the chance to take Luke Jackson twice yet he passed both times. 

And the whole Deng trade is actually an example one could use to argue Paxson taking a "chance" on a situation where Jerry Krause would tend to play it "safe." Krause has been quoted as saying he doesn't believe in trading away future first round picks because you don't know where that pick is going to end up, and who's going to be in the draft that year. The only time he ever traded a future 1st rounder was for Bryce Drew, and that pick was HEAVILY protected for multiple years, to the point it never even became a 1st rounder but instead two 2nd rounders. On the other hand, the pick Pax traded to Phoenix was only protected top 3 this year, top 1 next year, then finally unprotected in 2007. Krause would NEVER do a trade like that. 

The "we were thisclose to keeping Mike Wilks over Chris Duhon" bashing is also lame. Pax originally asked Duhon if he wanted to play overseas for a year because at the time we had way too many point guards. But even if that had happened, we still would have had Duhon's rights the following year. Once Duhon refused to go overseas, Paxson came out and said he would have to earn his spot on the team. That is exactly what happened. Duhon played great, Wilks stunk it up. Where is the problem? The fact Mike Wilks had a guaranteed contract as part of the Mutombo trade while Duhon did not actually lends more kudos to Pax for sticking with Duhon. 

I call it like I see it. If I wanted to bash Paxson for anything last season, it would probably be that horrible Mutombo for Pike trade. There was no way Deke was going to "retire" rather than play for us. See AD and the Knicks. Just look how great Mutombo was last year backing up Yao. How important would Deke have been for us in that Washington series? I say we would have won it with him, or at the very least pushed that series to seven games.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

And i thought Arenas was gone for good..nah, he just was reincarnated.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The ballsy (lucky?) part was thinking Deng would be there, if that’s what he even thought.


The real luck was in the fact that the Suns were incredibly desperate to clear cap space to sign Q and make a run at Kobe and needed to dump their first-rounder, and that Bryan Colangelo targeted us in a trade because he thought we'd be wretched that upcoming season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

SALO said:


> How do you know for sure Paxson was going to take Luke Jackson?


I don't. Reading the articles before the draft, the word was that he was high on him though. 

Where did I say I was sure he was going to take Luke Jackson?





> And the whole Deng trade is actually an example one could use to argue Paxson taking a "chance" on a situation where Jerry Krause would tend to play it "safe." Krause has been quoted as saying he doesn't believe in trading away future first round picks because you don't know where that pick is going to end up, and who's going to be in the draft that year.


Its foolish to give up draft picks for little in return. Paxson made a nice gamble. Since we were able to land Deng, which didn't seem probable to general public at the time of the trade, it worked out fine. It was a nice move. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But, it was a gamble.

Krause was not known for playing it safe. He was a swing for the fences risk taker.

I don't think saying that Paxson traded for a pick that ended up being Deng is bashing Paxson.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I just love how we have Pax figured out based on 2 drafts (in which he picked developed college players, nevermind that they were the best players available) and some shrewd trades in which he rid the team of overrated, overhyped, and overpaid chuckers (nevermind that these players haven't done anything to help their new teams win).

Paxson fears greatness. :boohoo:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> (nevermind that these players haven't done anything to help their new teams win).


Yah, but the players we dumped this summer certainly helped our team win.

And that's what is important.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, but the players we dumped this summer certainly helped our team win.
> 
> And that's what is important.


Crawford and Rose helped our team win?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> I just love how we have Pax figured out based on 2 drafts (in which he picked developed college players, nevermind that they were the best players available) and some shrewd trades in which he rid the team of overrated, overhyped, and overpaid chuckers (nevermind that these players haven't done anything to help their new teams win).
> 
> Paxson fears greatness. :boohoo:


It's curious as to why you seem to have to take offense to any questioning of John Paxson. Is the man beyond reproach? Also in a future post you respond to Kukoc4ever's claim that these players helped us win games with "Rose and Crawford helped us win games?" Is anyone from the Rose and Crawford trades even still in Chicago anymore for one? Davis went with Curry to New York as basically a throw-in. I guess there is Othella Harrington and secondary acquisition Eric Piatkowski. He turned Rose and Crawford into Othella Harrington and Eric Piatkowski? Ouch.

Also I think he might have been referring to Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis. That would be the same Antonio Davis that the Paxson mafia openly contended on the radio and in the newspaper was "coming back to Chicago 100% without discussion, just as soon as he gets waived!" Doh! 

Forget Eddy Curry. Dicey situation. The fact that Antonio Davis was basically thrown into the "party pack" disgusts me. Now we have Andres Nocioni playing Davis' role. Well that is unless you go to the other board where any day now he'll be our starting SHOOTING GUARD (please, somebody shoot ME!). It may take us years to find an enforcer/rebounder/defender all in one frontcourt player who brings the quality in those areas like Antonio Davis did, and all without wanting to be an attention hog or a ball hog (When a player is like Davis but wants to be these things he becomes... what CHARLES OAKLEY was in Chicago). 

The Jalen Rose trade was great. He AND Donyell Marshall went to Toronto in return for Davis. Forget that it COULD have been worked out to get Mo Pete too, who would have helped us greatly last year and this year. But Rose ended up becoming a very valuable asset to any team. Antonio Davis! Too bad Antonio Davis for all intents and purposes became Tim Thomas. That converted the Rose Trade from a brilliant one into netting us nothing!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> The fact that Antonio Davis was basically thrown into the "party pack" disgusts me



The trade did not financially work without the Davis for TT swap.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> He AND Donyell Marshall went to Toronto in return for Davis. Forget that it COULD have been worked out to get Mo Pete too, who would have helped us greatly last year and this year.



Now you're resorting to holding speculation against Paxson.





> He turned Rose and Crawford into Othella Harrington and Eric Piatkowski? Ouch.



And here you choose to curiously ignore what we got in receipt for Davis.






> That would be the same Antonio Davis that the Paxson mafia openly contended on the radio and in the newspaper was "coming back to Chicago 100% without discussion, just as soon as he gets waived!" Doh!



Only put things in quotaiton marks if they are quotes.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Now you're resorting to holding speculation against Paxson.


The team's record under his watch and the current talent pool we have speaks for itself.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Crawford and Rose helped our team win?


Ah.

OK... I guess we agree about Curry's influence then. 

Rose did make our team better than what it was before the trade.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> The trade did not financially work without the Davis for TT swap.


(hint: Maybe it not working should have been well enough then)


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> It's curious as to why you seem to have to take offense to any questioning of John Paxson. Is the man beyond reproach? Also in a future post you respond to Kukoc4ever's claim that these players helped us win games with "Rose and Crawford helped us win games?" Is anyone from the Rose and Crawford trades even still in Chicago anymore for one? Davis went with Curry to New York as basically a throw-in. I guess there is Othella Harrington and secondary acquisition Eric Piatkowski. He turned Rose and Crawford into Othella Harrington and Eric Piatkowski? Ouch.


Yeah, OMG I can't believe Pax couldn't swing a couple of lotto picks for the coveted duo of Rose and Crawford. When you trade garbage don't expect to get much back. But your assertion that we simply gained Pike and Othella is misleading. We gained financial flexibility over the summer. Let's at least wait to see what free agency and/or trades with this cap space can bring us. Novel concept...



> Forget Eddy Curry. Dicey situation. The fact that Antonio Davis was basically thrown into the "party pack" disgusts me.


Antonio Davis, as Sham mentioned, was a salary throw-in. And while I think AD would help this year's team, he is on his last legs and means very little in terms of the big picture. I certainly don't see it as any type of blunder on Pax's part.



> Forget that it COULD have been worked out to get Mo Pete too, who would have helped us greatly last year and this year.


Man, I again just love when trades are evaluated by people with absolutely no familiarity to the actual trade talks between the two GM's. Let me guess, you remember reading an article somewhere which implied Peterson was available?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> Now you're resorting to holding speculation against Paxson.


Not resorting to anything. It's not that serious. My first post in the threat outlined that I thought Paxson was a GOOD GM, and "here is the very good, very bad and in between. That precludes me from being labeled with an agenda to "Bring down Paxdome." Is it not OK to note that a lot of people were throwing MoPete's name out in VERY plausible trade scenarios?



> And here you choose to curiously ignore what we got in receipt for Davis.


Uhhh no I didn't. Davis was basically converted into Tim Thomas. If you care to assert otherwise, then fine, Davis was converted into a lottery pick (in an era where the lottery is not what it used to be, and in a year where the draft looks a lot like draft 2000), Michael Sweetney, a pick swap and second rounders and Curry was converted into Tim Thomas. Or you could say that Davis was converted into Sweetney and Curry into the picks. Either way we got a tweener and draft picks in a draft where we better get one guy or probably just not even bother. This strategy is no more sound than it was in 2000. *But then, I laid out my entire logic on evaluation of Paxson. Didn't you say you'd get to it when you "had time" *



> Only put things in quotaiton marks if they are quotes.


Oh come on. You didn't think that that was a given at the time? Is that rule in the TOS?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, OMG I can't believe Pax couldn't swing a couple of lotto picks for the coveted duo of Rose and Crawford. When you trade garbage don't expect to get much back. But your assertion that we simply gained Pike and Othella is misleading. We gained financial flexibility over the summer. Let's at least wait to see what free agency and/or trades with this cap space can bring us. Novel concept...


Why is there a need to be so defensive about it? Let me ask you this so we can get to an understanding. Is it possible that John Paxson has ever made a bad decision or that he isn't in the upper echelon of GMs? You wait and see. When Paxson makes good with those assets, then I'll be the first to congratulate him. But the idea that we should give him the benefit of the doubt on free agent money is amusing. Who has he signed so far with his dollars? Scottie Pippen, Andres Nocioni, Chris Duhon and Tyson Chandler. Two horrendous decisions, one great one and one good one. The odds are hardly so one sided as to suggest a presumption that Pax will turn capspace into gold. As far as the draft, this draft sucks. I'm not "drooling" over anyone in the draft. Only Lamarcus Aldridge has a chance to give us what we need over the next two years. Because we've put ourselves in a position where we don't just need a contributor, we need acquisitions who are going to be better than ALL OF OUR current players, save perhaps Luol Deng. Pretty hard to be successful when you admit you have a team full of role players and basically have to acquire two players to be, at the very worst, your second and third best players. 



> Antonio Davis, as Sham mentioned, was a salary throw-in. And while I think AD would help this year's team, he is on his last legs and means very little in terms of the big picture. I certainly don't see it as any type of blunder on Pax's part.


That could have to do with the glasses you are wearing. without reading through your posts I get the feeling you've never seen anything as a blunder on Pax's part. Moving on, Antonio Davis is far better NOW than anything we have in our frontcourt. It could take us 3 years to find a player as good as Antonio Davis. He's an enforcer, an anchor and I don't care if he's 41, what did we get for him? If you count Sweetney and Curry as cancelling each other out (even though Eddy is better) then after Tim Thomas becoming invisible we got a lotto pick a pick swap and two second rounders. This isn't 1984. If it was, then the pick might make me accept losing Davis like that. Paxson having to involve Antonio Davis should have meant not accepting that deal and moving on to another deal, or even signing him for the Q.O. 

But the results are right in front of your face. You take it as a given that we'll markedly improve next year. Two things. I don't. I like to count my chickens WHEN they hatch, not before. Secondly, wasn't the main selling point of Paxson that we wouldn't have to be hoping for the draft and free agency like we did back in 2000 under Krause? I thought Paxson's selling point was that even if we weren't great, we'd always be competitive. We have expansion teams *asking us who our daddy is and getting away with it!*



> Man, I again just love when trades are evaluated by people with absolutely no familiarity to the actual trade talks between the two GM's. Let me guess, you remember reading an article somewhere which implied Peterson was available?


Why are you getting so defensive? Is not evaluation of the man involved. Hey Hub Arkush, I didn't know that I had to be an NBA insider like you to evaluate a trade. Positive evaluation of Paxson is allowed ad nauseam all over the city, and it is never assumed that his successes could EVER have anything to do with circumstances. When he succeeds it's because, he's John Paxson, who equals success. 

Paxson fans lived off of his track record and how quickly he has made us competitive. He turned around and made us a laughing stock and nobody else made those decisions but him. And even for a day, his fans won't own up to his decisions. I gave him credit for his successes, can you even begin to be honest with yourself for his failures? Or do you think he doesn't have any.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not if he believed in the product he was putting on the court.
> 
> The ballsy (lucky?) part was thinking Deng would be there, if that’s what he even thought.
> 
> ...


Perhaps. But, a) Deng was there and b) How do we know Jackson would've been the pick if he wasn't? A lot of pre-draft reports had Paxson very high on Andre Iguodala, I think we may well have taken him if Deng had been off the board.

As for the Duhon/Wilks stuff, the bottom line is that Pax drafted Duhon and ultimately cut Wilks because Duhon's play necessitated it. That the Bulls felt that Wilks might be the better backup PG prior to camp is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Crawford and Rose helped our team win?


2nd best record for the Bulls since the dynasty was dismantled.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> 2nd best record for the Bulls since the dynasty was dismantled.



The year after we got rid of them, we had the first best. And doubled our win total. Ho hum.


As for Duhon/Wilks - Pax brought in those two for one spot, and kept the best. Can't see any luck involved there.





> Is it not OK to note that a lot of people were throwing MoPete's name out in VERY plausible trade scenarios?



Again, we come back to that word "plausible". Which is not something that can be definitely decided upon either way. We don't know if Pax asked for Mo Pete. We don't know if they offered him. We don't know if they turned ihm down, or whether Paxson did. We don't know if he was even involved, period.


We just flat don't know. And so, let's not go there.






> (hint: Maybe it not working should have been well enough then)



See, now we're back to the merits of the Curry trade. Something that's been discussed long and hard for a long while. And will be for a lot longer.






> (in an era where the lottery is not what it used to be, and in a year where the draft looks a lot like draft 2000),



Now you're becoming a spin doctor. To spin it the other way, as of right now, Paxson has got himself, at worst, a top 5 pick. The fact is, it's a nie thing to have.





> Didn't you say you'd get to it when you "had time"



I still might. It is, however, 11pm on New Years night. Only my enforced teetotalism is keeping me here right now answering these.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Why is there a need to be so defensive about it? Let me ask you this so we can get to an understanding. Is it possible that John Paxson has ever made a bad decision or that he isn't in the upper echelon of GMs? You wait and see. When Paxson makes good with those assets, then I'll be the first to congratulate him. But the idea that we should give him the benefit of the doubt on free agent money is amusing. *Who has he signed so far with his dollars? Scottie Pippen, Andres Nocioni, Chris Duhon and Tyson Chandler. Two horrendous decisions, one great one and one good one. * The odds are hardly so one sided as to suggest a presumption that Pax will turn capspace into gold. As far as the draft, this draft sucks. I'm not "drooling" over anyone in the draft. Only Lamarcus Aldridge has a chance to give us what we need over the next two years. Because we've put ourselves in a position where we don't just need a contributor, we need acquisitions who are going to be better than ALL OF OUR current players, save perhaps Luol Deng. Pretty hard to be successful when you admit you have a team full of role players and basically have to acquire two players to be, at the very worst, your second and third best players.
> 
> *But the results are right in front of your face. You take it as a given that we'll markedly improve next year. Two things. I don't. *


I have not once taken it as a given that Paxson's moves will be successful in making us a championship contender, and you attempting to attribute those statements to me is incorrect. I liked what Pax has done up this point with the mess he's inherited from Krause, but his job is far from complete. I have patience and want to see how he uses the assets at his disposal.

That is my point, you seem to have already chalked up certain moves as unfavorable (i.e. getting "nothing" for Rose/Crawford, or the Chandler signing, which are both very premature judgments). Further, you've (and this really isn't just directed at you) already pegged Pax as a non-risk taking GM based on a small sample size of moves, and questionable interpretation of said moves.



> Why are you getting so defensive?


...says the guy calling me Hub Arkush and telling me I'm wearing Pax-tinted glasses.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

> Again, we come back to that word "plausible". Which is not something that can be definitely decided upon either way. We don't know if Pax asked for Mo Pete. We don't know if they offered him. We don't know if they turned ihm down, or whether Paxson did. We don't know if he was even involved, period.
> 
> 
> We just flat don't know. And so, let's not go there.


One, I never said I knew. You did. Two, you seem to want to establish rules for the discussion. I'll have my rules and you have yours. I know that now that things aren't rosey, Paxson fans who spent over a year ripping everyone and having a lovefest don't want to "go there." You even hear ridiculously funny things like "the Eddy Curry trade is a trade you make and don't look back (yeah because I guess looking back might mean accountability for John Paxson)." It is possible that he made bad decisions. I noted the good ones. By doing this, I'm not sitting there like "Paxson is inherently stupid and that's why the Curry trade didn't work out." It was a bad decision in my opinion. We all make them. But the notion that I have to be an NBA insider (Frankensteiner) or "know" according to your rules to evaluate is laughable. Now of course my response to you wasn't a full response with all of my logic laid out about John Paxson. I provided that earlier in the thread. Respond to it if you care. 



> See, now we're back to the merits of the Curry trade. Something that's been discussed long and hard for a long while. And will be for a lot longer.


Well the idea that "the trade doesn't work out without Antonio Davis" should come with the natural question of "should it have been pressed at all then." The idea that "Well we had to put Davis in, because without Davis we could not have made the trade" isn't good enough for me. That assumes that the trade was a good idea, so as to block any question as to whether Davis should have been in it. 



> Now you're becoming a spin doctor. To spin it the other way, as of right now, Paxson has got himself, at worst, a top 5 pick. The fact is, it's a nie thing to have.


And what is a top 5 pick today? Is a top five pick in most drafts in the past ten years likely to give us even the production that Antonio Davis or Eddy Curry gave us last year? If this were the 2003 draft I'd be saying "yeah Paxson probably did a good thing." It isn't. Why is it assumed that we should be "drooling" over this pick? I just don't see it. Do I need to go into a tracking of the top 5 picks from the 80s until now? Cause I guarantee you with the exception of 2003 a top 5 pick isn't close to what it used to be. Marcus Fizer was a top 5 pick and generally thought of as the best pick that could be had at his slot. So was Jay Williams. 

*You do realize that you are talking about a top 5 pick in the first draft with the age limit taking potential draftees out of the draft pot right?*



> I still might. It is, however, 11pm on New Years night. Only my enforced teetotalism is keeping me here right now answering these.


I await and happy new year


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> I have not once taken it as a given that Paxson's moves will be successful in making us a championship contender, and you attempting to attribute those statements to me is incorrect. I liked what Pax has done up this point with the mess he's inherited from Krause, but his job is far from complete. I have patience and want to see how he uses the assets at his disposal.
> 
> That is my point, you seem to have already chalked up certain moves as unfavorable (i.e. getting "nothing" for Rose/Crawford, or the Chandler signing, which are both very premature judgments). Further, you've (and this really isn't just directed at you) already pegged Pax as a non-risk taking GM based on a small sample size of moves, and questionable interpretation of said moves.
> 
> ...


1. Of all the moves he has made and I've listed probably 10, what move besides Deng could be viewed as a "risk" that most other GMs wouldn't likely take in the same situation. Trading Crawford and Rose were not risks, and they were good moves at the time. Crawford still is. But the Rose trade was substantially negated when Davis was sent to New York. If this isn't true then why was the initial analysis of the trade based on Davis coming back here being a "given." Trading Curry with his heart problem was playing it safe. Keeping him probably would have been the risk by a small margin. 

2. Isn't giving Paxson the benefit of the doubt already chalking his moves up as successful? I've seen the city of Chicago chalk the Curry trade up as successful because "with all the assets we've acquired, we look to have a much better future outlook." Says who. The draft is more of a crapshoot than ever and so is free agency. We have come to rely on these instead of riding things out when we were winning. This is how we screwed ourself in 2000, no different. Now, if Paxson hits jackpot in the draft, I'll be the first person to commend him, but why the presumption the OTHER way, that they are GOOD moves?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*Wow! It is getting UGLY over there lol. Check out this post from someone who thought for sure that Paxson was Jerry West just 5 weeks ago*

*Joe Jackson*
Assistant GM



Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 774
Location: Great plains - Big sky- dust bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bulls6 wrote: 
Pax knows: a GM who listens to the fans will soon be sitting with them. 

Pax has a plan. This season is irrelevant 


That is completely asinine. 
If this season is irrelevant then the Bulls season tickets and all other game tickets are irrelevant. And they should be given an injunction and made to stop charging for them and refund all tickets sold for the remainder of this season. 
And when this dim-witted sloth decides another season is relevant again they could be permitted to start charging again. 
I am sorry, but getting horse-collared and forced into the Curry deal at a late date is no excuse for giving up on the season and just putting a half-assed excuse for a team on the floor with only about half of the regular positions legitimately covered is incompetent and unacceptable. 

The Bulls have plenty of pieces and there are plenty of pieces available to put a complete competetive team on the floor today and still be planning for the future. 
To just say to the loyal fans of Chicago, "pfquk you, I know what I'm doing and you are just going to have to pay for an inferior product and watch them lose until I get what I want." Like he really knows what he is going to get. How is he going to get it? Draft another stumble-bum like Ben Gordon with the 3rd pick? Or make another trade with his fellow genius, zeke, for some more of his junk? Or re-sign Songaila for a new $68,000,000 contract to play along with Tyson the kiddie-romper. 
This is all bull about it taking 2 or 3 years to make a move. 
**** it. The bulls need a big man now. And they need a real SG now. And they should take any of these phonies they have now and the draft picks and go get a couple players. Then after you see what you have, continue building from there. 

What is his point? None of these guys he has except maybe Deng and Hinrich are especially worth keeping. Most of them would be more good gone. There is no need at all to wait on these goofballs. 
So he needs to get off his dumb a$$ and do something. At no other job in the world are you allowed to watch something just go to hell and say, "ah, yeah, I'm going to fix that next year. And there is nothing I can do in the meantime." Well, how about if we just stop fukin' paying him in the meantime then. And then when he decides it is time to do something again, we will see about paying him again. 
He acts like well, hell, let's just leave New Orleans flooded until it dries up by itself and then we'll build a levie so big even a tsunami couldn't breach it. I say, baloney, get off your dead a$$ and get out there and fix that dam now, Paxson. Or else stop stealing your paycheck every payday until you do. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was I the only person watching tonight who thought "Man, Lamarcus Alridge isn't even gonna be a STOPGAP for this romper room." This team makes me want Corey Benjamin, Michael Ruffin, Elton Brand, Charles Oakley and Bryce Drew back (not sure they ever played together but it sounds good lol).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Perhaps. But, a) Deng was there and b) How do we know Jackson would've been the pick if he wasn't? A lot of pre-draft reports had Paxson very high on Andre Iguodala, I think we may well have taken him if Deng had been off the board.
> 
> As for the Duhon/Wilks stuff, the bottom line is that Pax drafted Duhon and ultimately cut Wilks because Duhon's play necessitated it. That the Bulls felt that Wilks might be the better backup PG prior to camp is pretty irrelevant.


The only relevance I see to talking about this kind of thing is evaluating Paxson's preferences when picking players.

Our really good starting PG was not expected to be all that good last year. Otherwise, talk of playing in Europe would not even exist. Duhon really did a lot to save our season last year. No playoffs without him, IMO. 

Deng, our best player and really the only hope for the future we have, was a second choice... and was not expected to be there. If Paxson felt Deng was as good as he is, then I would expect he would have been our first pick in that draft. If the draft was re-run today... Deng would be what... the 2nd overall pick?

Our first pick was Ben Gordon. Just like last year, IMO, he's the 3rd best player from this bunch. That's who Paxson chose after good centers were picked out of all the players left in the draft. Gordon was his man. No way to dispute it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

are JP's bulls a good team ?

no they are currently not, and part of it is because he has failed in his ability to build a whole team ,pax's ability is to find good players on the perimeter....it worked out for a while, but pax doesn't seem to have the knack for bigs ....the only one he has brought in the draft is austin, and in trades the only bigs he has are othella and sweetney(maybe he has a secret crush on georgetown bigs). in FA he has malik allen , songalia and nocioni (who is sort of a big, a 3/4 really) if not for him inheriting tyson ...who also isn't doing so well but at leasst we all know why and it should be fixed eventually.

with the talent pax has brought in on the post its very hard to be good.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think there is much comparison between the talent Krause acquired and the players Paxson drafted/acquired.
> 
> Krause went after MVP candidates, all NBA defense guys and all-stars.
> 
> ...


K4E, I haven't read this whole thread yet, so you might just have to link me back to a post of yours.

In Paxson drafting Gordon, clearly he was shooting for an all star. Gordon doesn't have the size to be a scorer at the 2, only the talent. He was taking a risk, much like Krause did in reaching for the two towers. Isn't there a parallel?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> In Paxson drafting Gordon, clearly he was shooting for an all star. Gordon doesn't have the size to be a scorer at the 2, only the talent. He was taking a risk, much like Krause did in reaching for the two towers. Isn't there a parallel?


No. There are smart moves and dumb ones. Undersized shooting guards with NCAA championship pedigree are not the way to go, IMO, unless its Iverson, which Gordon clearly isn't. 

Freakishly athletic 7 footers... thats a much better bet, IMO. That's a calculated risk. It may fail, but its a risk you have to take.

Paxson wanted players who have played in the big games and play the right way. He seemingly loves the college pedigree. Paxson needs to see a track record. He's risk averse. He does not want to sit around and take the gamble of a player not developing. He does not want to fail. He'd rather be average than fail, IMO, which is unacceptable. We play it safe. We're singles hitters.

There is a physical barrier to entry in this league. Our guys don't pass it. We're outmanned every night.

Just watch Marion out there last night. That's an NBA basketball player. That's a guy that helps you win games. Amare is a guy that helps you become a great team. 

We were not physically outmanned every night when Paxson took over the team. We may have had a couple screwballs and a shaky coaching situation, but the raw materials were there. 

The Twin Towers model led us to the playoffs last season. Now that the towers are dismantled, we see what jib alone gets you.

Now we've maximized jib, but take a look out on the court, it won't get you very far without the required talent.

(i'm not going to spend an hour digging up old news articles, so if you want to disagree, just disagree, but don't play the prove it card. i don't think i'm way off here.)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

42% of voters right now think we're a good basketball team.

Wow.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Bizump


----------

