# Was Krause Right ?



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

about JC,TC and EC.It's starting to look that way.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Did ballerkingn start a basically identical thread to this one 17 days ago? Its starting to look that way.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=323576


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You're not right if it takes 5 years to happen.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Version 2.0 and still no spaces between sentences.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Crawford was supposed to be a tall point guard. Instead he's a two and likely the biggest chucker in the entire league.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Krause was semi-right.

Paxson should have kept Chandler and Curry, or at least kept Chandler this past offseason.

PG-Ben Gordon
SG-Thabo Sefolosha
SF-Luol Deng
PF-Ben Wallace
C- Tyson Chandler

Off the bench

PG-Chris Duhon
SG-Kirk Hinrich
SF-Andres Nocioni
PF-Tyrus Thomas
C- Malik Allen


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ballerkingn said:



> about JC,TC and EC.It's starting to look that way.


JC: What does this guy add? He is a 38% FG shooting guard. Doesn't play defense, is extremely streaky. Was he right? He is better than Chris Mihm, but at best a backup guard. He HAS peaked already. No thanks.

EC: Had he gotten better really? His FG shooting is the same. His FT shooting is the worse. His rebounding is the same (terrible). His defense is the same (terrible). He is playing more minutes, therefore scoring more. He is very one-dimensional still. He will never play on a champsionship team at a star, starting center. He can put up good numbers on an team like the Knicks. If we had unlimited money and needed a scorer in the post off the bench, then EC would be nice.

TC: Excellent rebounder. No offense. Below average shot blocker and invidual defender. Non-existent passer. Is his better than Ben Wallace (who brings steals, assists, blocks, leadership)? No he isn't.

If we didn't sign Ben Wallace, then TC would make sense for us. Therefore our team is as good as it could have been right now.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

HKF said:


> You're not right if it takes 5 years to happen.


This is actually year SEVEN!!! for Jamal 

and 

year SIX!!! for TC and EC.

No GM or team can wait that long.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Krause was dead wrong on Fizer, still wrong on JC who is a streetballer, dead wrong on TC, but dead on with Eddy Curry. 

Pax was dead wrong on Eddy, but Iam sure he will be the first to say that he still wishes that he dint trade EC.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I was a Krause fan, but no, he wasn't right, particularly if you're looking to build on consistent hustle and defense (as PaxSkiles are doing).

To me, Curry remains the uber-talented big kid who doesn't want it nearly enough. Crawford is still a wonderful streak shooter who has improved defensively, but is not as good as Gordon (as I said at the time, Gordon>Crawford was the key to trading Crawford). Chandler may turn out to be the 40mpg defensive/rebounding stud Krause envisioned. Then again he may not. He's certainly not a complete player and I'd much rather have Wallace.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Krause was dead wrong on Fizer, still wrong on JC who is a streetballer, dead wrong on TC, but dead on with Eddy Curry.
> 
> Pax was dead wrong on Eddy, but Iam sure he will be the first to say that he still wishes that he dint trade EC.


So a team of:
Hinrich - Gordon
Duhon - Thabo
Deng
Nocioni - PJ
Eddy - Allen

Is better than:
Hinrich - Gordon
Duhon - Thabo
Deng
Nocioni - Tyrus - Sweetney
Wallace - PJ

Because that's what you're saying. I don't think too many people would trade Eddy for Big Ben, Tyrus, Sweetney PLUS the Knicks pick. Or does having Eddy mean we somehow get some other "imaginary" players like a 28-year old Antonio Davis to play with him?

We average 100.6 points per game right now. That's 8th best in the NBA. WE DON'T NEED MORE SCORING! We need balance of which Ben Wallace provides with his passing, defense, steals, blocks, offensive rebounding. Eddy provides SCORING Why do we need another 19 ppg scorer? Do we really need another black hole?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> So a team of:
> Hinrich - Gordon
> Duhon - Thabo
> Deng
> ...


Yeah I think Eddy makes the Bulls better plain and simple. Ben Wallace is a great defensive player and rebounder but its been made obvious that when put up against a good offensive big man Ben Wallace is no where near as effective.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

I know u guy's aren't from nyc as I am,but EC has been playing out his mind this month,and don't u guy's remember the streak of 20 ppg he had.Now for EC that insanse,and he was reb pretty well too.To me he's an all star this year.With shaq down,and no other true big man out thier why not.

As for JC i'm not sure about his shooting pct,but ever sense the brawl he's been hot,and leading the knick's to victory over some good team's including us.just look up the stat's pretty impressive.


Then TC,has been the TC of old,reb,and altering and blking shots.Still doesn't have much of a offensive game,but is out reb Ben wallace thus far this season,and has been stay out of foul trouble most game's.Still could u imagine EC,and TC together right now in the east.I think that with them who could really stop us in the east,and we could def been in the east con final's.

but back to JC for a sec,he's really becoming a clutch player as ben,and is 6'6 with true pg skills which allows him to be even more deadlier.because he can look over most pg.Anyway we could also have a back court of crawford and ben right now,and i would take that 1 over kirk and duhon anyday,even if the D is so so.

oh yeah i brought this up because of JC play,in my last post i was talking about EC,and TC only not JC who is looking pretty good,and killed us last game.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah I think Eddy makes the Bulls better plain and simple. Ben Wallace is a great defensive player and rebounder but its been made obvious that when put up against a good offensive big man Ben Wallace is no where near as effective.


Eddy would make this Bulls team (and the next 3 years team) better than:

Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, Michael Sweetney and the Knicks Pick

WOW...really? Then we could be Washington. They have alot of scorers. They also have absolutely zero chance at winning a championship, but at least they score alot.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ben Wallaces numbers are down across the board from last year. Curry's are up. How old is he?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> Eddy would make this Bulls team (and the next 3 years team) better than:
> 
> Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, Michael Sweetney and the Knicks Pick
> 
> WOW...really? Then we could be Washington. They have alot of scorers. They also have absolutely zero chance at winning a championship, but at least they score alot.


LOL, Ben Wallace will decline in skills in the next 3 seasons so that alone still makes Curry a better option and what the hell has Sweetney and Thomas provided so far in terms of the win loss record? One can argue that without Eddy Curry the Knicks would have lost ALOT more games this season. 

Ps. Washington beat us in the playoffs so what does that say about us?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ballerkingn said:


> I know u guy's aren't from nyc as I am,but EC has been playing out his mind this month


For December Eddy is averaging 22.3 ppg. I guess that is playing out of his mind.

Ben Gordon is averaging 23.3 ppg. I guess that must be out of his mind and a few other people's as well. We already have somebody playing out of his mind and taking the majority of our shots. We don't need another player like that.

Eddy Curry in December:
22.3 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg, 0.64 spg, 0.79 bpg.

Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, Michael Sweetney in December:
17.1 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 3.6 apg, 2.55 spg, 3.36 bpg

So I guess Curry's extra 6.2 ppg is more valuable than an extra 8.0 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.61 spg and 2.57 bpg.

I think it's the extra 8.0 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.61 spg and 2.57 bpg we get from these players that makes us a 17-12 team right now. The extra 8.0 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.61 spg and 2.57 is CERTAINLY worth more than 6.2 ppg.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> I think it's the extra 8.0 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.61 spg and 2.57 bpg we get from these players that makes us a 17-12 team right now. The extra 8.0 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.61 spg and 2.57 is CERTAINLY worth more than 6.2 ppg.


The fact that you need to compare Eddy's stats to the COMBINED STATS of 3 NBA PLAYERS makes a strong case as to how well Eddy Curry is doing.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Ben Wallaces numbers are down across the board from last year. Curry's are up. How old is he?


That is such a vast generalization. Wallace is playing next to players who rebound better than the Piston's did last year. Nocioni / Deng are some of the best rebounding players for these positions. 

Looking at December since has settled in, he is up in blocks, up in assists, up in offensive rebounding, same in overall rebounding, same in steals as last year. That is NOT down across the board. This is better actually.

Curry's numbers are up, be he is playing more minutes. He isn't playing better or worse, just more.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> The fact that you need to compare Eddy's stats to the COMBINED STATS of 3 NBA PLAYERS makes a strong case as to how well Eddy Curry is doing.


That makes no sense. I don't need to, but those are the three players that Eddy would replace on our team.

Eddy was traded for Ben Wallace (cap space), Tyrus Thomas and Michale Sweetney.

We get Eddy, we lose those three players, simple as that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> That is such a vast generalization. Wallace is playing next to players who rebound better than the Piston's did last year. Nocioni / Deng are some of the best rebounding players for these positions.
> 
> Looking at December since has settled in, he is up in blocks, up in assists, up in offensive rebounding, same in overall rebounding, same in steals as last year. That is NOT down across the board. This is better actually.
> 
> Curry's numbers are up, be he is playing more minutes. He isn't playing better or worse, just more.


His numbers last year were down across the board from the previous season, too. And the year before that, and the year before that.

But December means everything to a player his age, I suppose. How old is Curry anyway?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> That makes no sense. I don't need to, but those are the three players that Eddy would replace on our team.
> 
> Eddy was traded for Ben Wallace (cap space), Tyrus Thomas and Michale Sweetney.
> 
> We get Eddy, we lose those three players, simple as that.


We had AD's expiring contract, and ERob's, too. We didn't gain the cap space for Ben Wallace from the deal.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We had AD's expiring contract, and ERob's, too. We didn't gain the cap space for Ben Wallace from the deal.


So if we signed Curry to a $50/M and $10/M per year deal that he signed with the Knicks wouldn't that have consumed most of the cap space we had to sign Ben Wallace?

I mean why didn't we just keep Eddy, Tyson and sign Ben Wallace...right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> So if we signed Curry to a $50/M and $10/M per year deal that he signed with the Knicks wouldn't that have consumed most of the cap space we had to sign Ben Wallace?
> 
> I mean why didn't we just keep Eddy, Tyson and sign Ben Wallace...right?


We signed Tyson to a $63M contract and still signed Wallace.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We signed Tyson to a $63M contract and still signed Wallace.


I'm not following you. By my math, we could only have 2 of the 3 of Tyson (PJ), Ben Wallace, Eddy.

So Eddy and Ben? Then we would have traded Tyson away instead of Eddy.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Well if Krause was right about seeing the yutes visable talent, he did a horrible job of developing them. 

If Krause was right, he was also wrong. The hiring of Floyd was horrible, you can't bring in kids as projects and then hire a coach that has no expirence at the NBA level either.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> I'm not following you. By my math, we could only have 2 of the 3 of Tyson (PJ), Ben Wallace, Eddy.
> 
> So Eddy and Ben? Then we would have traded Tyson away instead of Eddy.


We effectively traded Chandler and Curry for PJ Brown (YUK!) and Wallace. Pick any two.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> I'm not following you. By my math, we could only have 2 of the 3 of Tyson (PJ), Ben Wallace, Eddy.
> 
> So Eddy and Ben? Then we would have traded Tyson away instead of Eddy.


Had we not traded Eddy but resigned him, we still would have been under the cap this past summer due to AD's big expiring contract and a couple of other things (ERobbery and Pip coming off the books). 

The actual cap ramifications of the trade weren't that big because although we traded away Eddy's salary, it meant we acquired the salary of Tyrus and Khyrapa (who were both on the books at the time we signed Big Ben). With Eddy we would have been slightly above where we were, but only slightly. That means we could have signed Wallace to the same sort of deal he got in total amount; it just would have ended up being a normal backloaded deal instead of the somewhat unusual frontloaded deal the Bulls ended up giving him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Had we not traded Eddy but resigned him, we still would have been under the cap this past summer due to AD's big expiring contract and a couple of other things (ERobbery and Pip coming off the books).
> 
> The actual cap ramifications of the trade weren't that big because although we traded away Eddy's salary, it meant we acquired the salary of Tyrus and Khyrapa (who were both on the books at the time we signed Big Ben). With Eddy we would have been slightly above where we were, but only slightly. That means we could have signed Wallace to the same sort of deal he got in total amount; it just would have ended up being a normal backloaded deal instead of the somewhat unusual frontloaded deal the Bulls ended up giving him.


Not only could it have been backloaded, it could have started at $12.5M instead of $14M if they added another (5th) year.

Also, if I remember right, ERob was like $7M, Pip $5.5M, and AD on the order of $16M


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I think Krause was right on Eddy in the sense that it would take a few years to tap his potential. It is clear to me that the key to unlocking Eddy's potential was Isaiah Thomas's coaching. Unlike Skiles and the coaches before him Thomas has allowed Curry to play even when he has made mistakes and/or has three or more fouls on him.

Sure Zeke is a jerk in many ways but I have seen him work with younger players and he is very effective. He communicates very well with younger players and gives them encouragement. I don't think it is a fluke that guys like Lee, Frye and Balkman have developed very quickly under Thomas. 

Crawford developed very well under Brown and is continuing his improvement under Thomas. I think Cartwright was the only Bulls coach who really appreciated Crawford's ability.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I think Krause was right on Eddy in the sense that it would take a few years to tap his potential. It is clear to me that the key to unlocking Eddy's potential was Isaiah Thomas's coaching. Unlike Skiles and the coaches before him Thomas has allowed Curry to play even when he has made mistakes and/or has three or more fouls on him.
> 
> Sure Zeke is a jerk in many ways but I have seen him work with younger players and he is very effective. He communicates very well with younger players and gives them encouragement. I don't think it is a fluke that guys like Lee, Frye and Balkman have developed very quickly under Thomas.
> 
> Crawford developed very well under Brown and is continuing his improvement under Thomas. I think Cartwright was the only Bulls coach who really appreciated Crawford's ability.


I agree with you about Curry and Cartwright in general.

However, it seems to me that Crawford had been relegated to a role player position in NY until the suspensions when he was forced into the starting lineup. As a result, I think IT is in a real pickle - does he play guys like QRich and bench Crawford?

(Crawford has 17 points and 2 steals tonight, Curry 20 points and 10 rebounds, game in Q4).

Since Crawford's been starting, 10 games, he's averaging 20 PPG and 6.1 APG. His shooting is still subpar, though - .386 FG, .323 3pt


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

looks more like the hornets and knicks are right. they let the bulls go thru the majority of the development period. these guys are far from finished products, so to a degree they're still developing. but at least now they're doing more good than harm for their teams.

another question. was krause right about trenton hassell over gilbert arenas?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> That makes no sense. I don't need to, but those are the three players that Eddy would replace on our team.
> 
> Eddy was traded for Ben Wallace (cap space), Tyrus Thomas and Michale Sweetney.
> 
> We get Eddy, we lose those three players, simple as that.


First of all we did not trade Eddy for cap space he was traded because he would not take a DNA test plain and simple. Tyrus Thomas and Michael Sweetney have not done much for the Bulls so its not like we gained 2 amazing players or even 2 players of Eddy's value in return.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

RoRo said:


> looks more like the hornets and knicks are right. they let the bulls go thru the majority of the development period. these guys are far from finished products, so to a degree they're still developing. but at least now they're doing more good than harm for their teams.
> 
> another question. was krause right about trenton hassell over gilbert arenas?


That seems pretty much on the money to me. Krause was a disaster. Many of the players he picked turned out to be decent.

But he picked some decent players when there were some outstanding players on the table. 

And to top that off, he did an absolutely ****ty job of putting together teams. Good players or not, you need the right mix of players an the right mix of ages. Krause put together neither.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Look at our team right now. We are better than we've been at anytime during the post championship era. We are only getting better. We have good young players to build around and one of the deepest teams in the NBA. Why do we have this current and future success?

Because we dumped the 3 C's. Doesn't matter how good you think they are on other teams, they simply do not improve our current team. We are 18-12. We score 100+ ppg. We give up 95 ppg. We are not in the luxury tax range. What else do people want?

If Curry and JC are so great, why do the Knicks suck? Shouldn't great young players in year 6 and 7 of their NBA careers be able to carry their teams to success?

If Tyson is so great, why do the Hornets suck? Shouldn't a great player like Tyson be able to carry his team to a decent record? Or does he have an excuse?

Doesn't winning games mean more than statistics?

Jamal Crawford Career Record: 158-366 (0.301 Winning %)
Eddy Curry Career Record: 157-285 (0.355 Winning %)
Tyson Chandler Career Record: 174-265 (0.396 Winning %)

You can talk about they were on bad teams all you want. Are they not supposed star players we let slip away for nothing? Shouldn't they be able to have better winning percentages than that?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We effectively traded Chandler and Curry for PJ Brown (YUK!) and Wallace. Pick any two.


Right. I agree. We couldn't have had Ben Wallace without getting rid of one of those two.

We had Chandler and Curry and we still sucked. If we had Curry and Chandler now we would suck. It's no coincidence that we replaced them with Ben Wallace and nobody (PJ Brown) and we are suddenly alot better.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

curry would be the perfect fit with this team now.. i miss him.

he and wallace are the perfect frontline combo.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

charlietyra said:


> Crawford developed very well under Brown and is continuing his improvement under Thomas.


Developed? He is a shooting guard shooting 38% from the field. That's brutal. Any NBDL player could average 20 ppg if they got all the shots that Jamal gets.

Even high schoolers like Martel Webster (40%), Gerald Green (46%), Monta Ellis (46%) shoot higher.

Currently Jamal Crawford ranks 121st out of 125 qualified NBA players in field goal percentage.

This is year seven for Jamal. Not year one or year two. He's an overpaid bust who will find himself out of the NBA once his gross contract runs out and once Isiah leaves NY.

Yet somehow this clown ranks 27th in the NBA in shots per night at 15!!!!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Right. I agree. We couldn't have had Ben Wallace without getting rid of one of those two.
> 
> We had Chandler and Curry and we still sucked. If we had Curry and Chandler now we would suck. It's no coincidence that we replaced them with Ben Wallace and nobody (PJ Brown) and we are suddenly alot better.


We had Skiles and sucked.

The notion that you have addition by subtraction is a bogus one. If it were true, we'd have won with the NBDL guys. What also makes it a glaringly bogus notion is that we could only be better with Curry and/or Chandler.

In my eyes, the Bulls' getting better is the sum of a collection of draft picks - particularly Gordon and Deng. That's addition by addition by definition!


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We had Skiles and sucked.
> 
> The notion that you have addition by subtraction is a bogus one. If it were true, we'd have won with the NBDL guys. What also makes it a glaringly bogus notion is that we could only be better with Curry and/or Chandler.
> 
> In my eyes, the Bulls' getting better is the sum of a collection of draft picks - particularly Gordon and Deng. That's addition by addition by definition!


I agree. However, there are only 8 rotation spots and 48 minutes per night at five positions. I think people on this board are claiming that Eddy, Tyson and Jamal could replace people in our 8 man rotation and make us better.

I completely disagree with that notion.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

To the subject at hand... of course Krause was right. His drafting was really great. How many players picked after Curry, Crawford and Chandler turned out to be soooo much better then they are? 

In 2001: JRich, Battier, Joe Johnson are all good players, but are any head and shoulders above the bigs Krause picked? Not really and besides-when in doubt you ALWAYS go big.

In 2000: Dooling, Qrich, Courtney Alexander and Mateen Cleaves... which of these would have been a better pick then Crawford?

Krause picked some of the best players in those drafts... The big problem is those drafts just weren't that great.



And as for anyone who says Krause couldn't build a team: :lol: 








There are 5 more of these as well....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> I agree. However, there are only 8 rotation spots and 48 minutes per night at five positions. I think people on this board are claiming that Eddy, Tyson and Jamal could replace people in our 8 man rotation and make us better.
> 
> I completely disagree with that notion.


There's no doubt that Eddy Curry would be terrific for us in the post for 40 minutes a game. Yes, it would be better to have him at C and Wallace at PF and Deng/Nocioni in the frontcourt rotation.

This 8-man rotation thiing is a myth. What you want is the personnel to provide favorable matchups against whatever team you're playing against.

Last night is the perfect example. What did Nocioni do wrong that PJ Brown played 31 minutes and Noc 6? MATCHUP killed us with Nocioni in the game. And as bad as PJ Brown is (I'd rather have any of the 3Cs), simply being tall and stand next to Bargnani was enough to make the matchup less favorable.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

And don't for get too Krause did draft Brand of that 99 draft which was brought with a lot of backlash.And when u look back now brand was the best player to choose out of that draft so he made the right choice.Now i know he made the ultimate no no in trading him for TC,but TC did reach the playoff's before brand did,and if we still had TC,and EC we could go further with them 2 then brand by himself IMO.

So yes he was def wrong for trading him,but it wasn't that big of a deal if u really look at it.Still we could of had Steve Francis,who to me is looking like the new Penny Hardaway.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

RoRo said:


> another question. was krause right about trenton hassell over gilbert arenas?


Uh, I think not. However, in fairness, Arenas's incredible success has put egg on just about every NBA GM's face, and Arenas notwithstanding, the Hassell pick has turned out to be pretty darn solid for a second-rounder.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

transplant said:


> Uh, I think not. However, in fairness, Arenas's incredible success has put egg on just about every NBA GM's face, and Arenas notwithstanding, the Hassell pick has turned out to be pretty darn solid for a second-rounder.


Agreed. Dumping on Krause for not picking Gil is like getting on every other GM for not picking Toni Kukoc, Tony Parker and Ben Wallace....

It happens to EVERY GM. The key is keeping them to a minimum....


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Jim Ian said:


> And as for anyone who says Krause couldn't build a team: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but other than those 6 championships, what did he do?

In my mind, the line score on Krause is that he helped build a dynasty when he had the greatest player ever as a centerpiece. When he had to start from scratch, he failed miserably.

As you point out, most of his draft picks were sound when evaluated individually. I even understood the thinking behind the Brand trade, but it turned out to be his fatal mistake. His brilliant sense of chemistry during the dynasty years failed him in his attempt to rebuild. 

In the end, he put some of the best and some of the worst teams in the history of the NBA on the court during his tenure.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

transplant said:


> ]Krause's] brilliant sense of chemistry during the dynasty years failed him in his attempt to rebuild.


Krause didn't understand chemistry. PJax and Jordan understood it and created the right chemistry. 6 championships worth.

I'd give Krause credit for getting PJax but just like the Artest/Brand draft picks, you lose points if you discard those assets w/o understanding what you have. See Pink Floyd.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

my bottom line on krause is this; for all the "success" he's given credit for, why is it that his name hasn't been mentioned for ANY GM JOB SINCE? i don't believe for a nano-second he would have "retired" from pro basketball if a job with somebody had been offered, or was offered currently, say in cleveland who tabbed ferry, or in toronto, who recently tabbed colangelo. his rep, imo, was vastly overrated, regardless of the picks who've had success and outside of the fact that an inheritance of the GOAT helped him to get good players to go along with him and an up and coming coach in pj who could put it all together.

thank you.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Krause didn't understand chemistry. PJax and Jordan understood it and created the right chemistry. 6 championships worth.
> 
> I'd give Krause credit for getting PJax but just like the Artest/Brand draft picks, you lose points if you discard those assets w/o understanding what you have. See Pink Floyd.


Damn, I had hoped that I was done defending Krause a year or so ago.

IMO, Krause DID show a great sense of team chemistry during the dynasty years. Pippen, Grant and to a lesser extent, Armstrong were great picks and Paxson, Harper, Longley and Kerr were great and inexpensive pickups. They were the right kind of players for what the Bulls needed. His masterstroke was Rodman. Here, he understood that Jordan's presence, and to a lesser extent, Jackson's, would make this high risk acquisition pay off.

If you believe that Krause just happened to be "in the right place at the right time," I think you missed a lot.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

The question floating through my mind is why we're stopping with three players (EC/JC/TC) whose ultimate contributions to the league are still very much in doubt?

Why not second guess the failure to dump everything to move up one pick and take Yao?

Why not second guess the failure to lure Kobe here?

Why not second guess the failure to draft Amare?

Gilbert Arenas?

Zach Randolph?

Carlos Boozer?

Pau Gasol?


Why the "jonesing" for the EC/TC/JC trio? I'd criticize the drafting much more quickly than I would the moving of three players that, at the point that they were at in their career, were mediocre to average NBA basketball players. At some point it becomes a game of diminishing returns, and you've lost your investment of a draft pick and the best thing you can do is move them on and try again. It happens to every franchise. There isn't a franchise yet that has benefited from holding back from the same kind of move that we condemn the Bulls for making. The Bulls did not harm themselves. They got better.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> my bottom line on krause is this; for all the "success" he's given credit for, why is it that his name hasn't been mentioned for ANY GM JOB SINCE? i don't believe for a nano-second he would have "retired" from pro basketball if a job with somebody had been offered, or was offered currently, say in cleveland who tabbed ferry, or in toronto, who recently tabbed colangelo. his rep, imo, was vastly overrated, regardless of the picks who've had success and outside of the fact that an inheritance of the GOAT helped him to get good players to go along with him and an up and coming coach in pj who could put it all together.
> 
> thank you.


Krause is 67 years old, for Pete's sake! Lenny Wilkins is the winningest coach in NBA history, but I don't hear his name thrown around much for NBA coaching jobs (Wilkins is only 66). 

If either guy was in his 50s, there would be interest.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

transplant said:


> IMO, Krause DID show a great sense of team chemistry during the dynasty years. Pippen, Grant and to a lesser extent, Armstrong were great picks and Paxson, Harper, Longley and Kerr were great and inexpensive pickups. They were the right kind of players for what the Bulls needed. His masterstroke was Rodman. Here, he understood that Jordan's presence, and to a lesser extent, Jackson's, would make this high risk acquisition pay off.


Pippen and Grant were good picks primarily due to their talent, not due to chemistry, right?

Kraused aqcuired a dozen guards or so before he realized that short combo guards (Paxson, Armstrong) worked fine with MJ and Pip. Brilliance? IMHO, no.

I would agree that Krause understood the chemistry of his team when Rodman was acquired. However, in a fatal career ending mistake, he was clueless in understanding how to build that type of chemistry when he wasn't gifted the GOAT player with a matching work ethic.

_A few other thoughts: Minor postive: Kudos to Krause for getting reasonable facimiles for Paxson in Kerr and others in the 2nd 3-peat. Minor negative: I think it was PJax who remade players games like Harper. Harper didn't do what he was acquired for._



transplant said:


> If you believe that Krause just happened to be "in the right place at the right time," I think you missed a lot.


And I think you missed alot if you think Krause understood chemistry. See Jalen Rose acquision. See John Paxson's success after the worst 5-year run in the history of professional basketball.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

transplant said:


> Krause is 67 years old, for Pete's sake! Lenny Wilkins is the winningest coach in NBA history, but I don't hear his name thrown around much for NBA coaching jobs (Wilkins is only 66).
> 
> If either guy was in his 50s, there would be interest.


Well, Wayne Embry, Jerry West and Donnie Walsh are still working.

Krause *still* worked.... just in baseball scouting A ball.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Well, Wayne Embry, Jerry West and Donnie Walsh are still working.
> 
> Krause *still* worked.... just in baseball scouting A ball.


Simple fact of life: when you're in your 60s, you can may be able to KEEP your job (if you do it well), but it's unlikely that you'll get someone to give you a new one.

For the record, Krause doesn't deserve an NBA job now. He's 67 and as I stated earlier, failed miserably in his later years with the Bulls. Both his age and his recent failure work against him and I don't have a problem with either factor being considered.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Pippen and Grant were good picks primarily due to their talent, not due to chemistry, right?
> 
> Kraused aqcuired a dozen guards or so before he realized that short combo guards (Paxson, Armstrong) worked fine with MJ and Pip. Brilliance? IMHO, no.
> 
> ...


Krause saw that Pippen, a very raw uber-talent would complement Jordan perfectly and traded up to get him. I don't believe that Olden Polynice would have worked out as well, but that's just me. Point is that Pippen didn't simply fall into Krause's lap.

As for Krause's post-dynasty Bulls decisions, please read what I wrote.



> His brilliant sense of chemistry during the dynasty years failed him in his attempt to rebuild.


Brand was a horrible decision. Rose was a bad decision. In the post-dynasty years, Krause plainly lost his way.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

transplant said:


> Krause saw that Pippen, a very raw *uber-talent* would complement Jordan perfectly and traded up to get him. I don't believe that Olden Polynice would have worked out as well, but that's just me. Point is that Pippen didn't simply fall into Krause's lap.


But that's not the point. You said Krause had a great sense for chemistry during the championships. Picking Pippen doesn't support this IMHO.

Krause selection of Pippen with #5 pick in the 1987 draft is the best example of his talent evaluation skills. It's great he traded up from #10, too. That's good deal making.

But, it's a real stretch to use this as the prime example of Krause's ability to understand team chemisty.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sorry, transplant, I can't resist. I'm a weak man.



transplant said:


> Simple fact of life: when you're in your 60s, you can may be able to KEEP your job (if you do it well), but it's unlikely that you'll get someone to give you a new one.


Well, tell it to Krause. He got 2 new jobs at that age. For the Yankees and the Mets.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

the funny thing is this question can be asked at anytime. it's a bit unfair. if it takes one of the 3 C's this season or another 5 seasons to make the playoffs, someone can come here and say "Look Krause knew what he was doing all along." To answer the question, NO he was dead wrong, it cost him his job, his place in history even.

it was his second rebuilding effort and he failed. if he was right, then his legacy could have been redeemed. he would have something to hold in front of all the people who solely blame him for dismantling the championship bulls. instead the 3C gamble cements Krause as a figure of controversy. credit for the championships will always be split among the players vs phil vs management. Krause will never be able to say, "see i could build a winner without them", regardless what the 3C's accomplish individually or on different teams.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

19-12...and not a Three C in sight...gonna be a great 2007. Thanks for fixing Krause's mistakes Paxson. Best Christmas present I could have asked for.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> 19-12...and not a Three C in sight...gonna be a great 2007. Thanks for fixing Krause's mistakes Paxson. Best Christmas present I could have asked for.


Who do you want playing in a 7 game series against the Cavs: Curry, Chandler or PJ Brown and Malik Allen?

Think hard on it, the answer is _real_ obvious.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How about we trade Deng and Hinrich for Cap Space? Imagine the player(s) we'll end up when we cash in that cap space!

(Trying to see your logic)


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Who do you want playing in a 7 game series against the Cavs: Curry, Chandler or PJ Brown and Malik Allen?
> 
> Think hard on it, the answer is _real_ obvious.


We could have had Curry AND Chandler instead of PJ Brown and Malik Allen?

Really...how?

We had Curry and Chandler in 7 game series and we lost. This team is alot more capable of succeeding in the playoffs.

Our scorers are Deng and Gordon. We don't need Curry. There wouldnt be enough touches for all of them.

We have Ben Wallace. We don't need Chandler.

19-12...best home record in the NBA...GREAT team chemistry...our offense is the best it has been since the Jordan era...and the best part...No Chandler, Crawford or Curry...all proven losers in the NBA.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> How about we trade Deng and Hinrich for Cap Space? Imagine the player(s) we'll end up when we cash in that cap space!
> 
> (Trying to see your logic)


Where is your logic? The three C's are all proven NBA losers and one-dimensional players.

If you like them so much, go to the Knicks and Hornets forum and proclaim your love.

Our team is 19-12 and we have the best chance of winning since MJ left this team. That's a fact.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> We could have had Curry AND Chandler instead of PJ Brown and Malik Allen?
> 
> Really...how?
> 
> ...


We could have had Curry and Chandler and Allen.

How many minutes did Wallace play tonight? How'd he do against a team with a 7'4" C and two PF sized guys in the front court?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Who do you want playing in a 7 game series against the Cavs: Curry, Chandler or PJ Brown and Malik Allen?
> 
> Think hard on it, the answer is _real_ obvious.


That would be very applicable IF, IF Paxson had made the trade thinking it was an even talent for talent swap...or that his team was coming out ahead in talent.

It's not true. The trade was made for other reasons, the seven game series doesn't exist, and we're significantly above .500.

Life is _real_ good as it is for the Bulls and their fans.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Look at our team right now. We are better than we've been at anytime during the post championship era. We are only getting better. We have good young players to build around and one of the deepest teams in the NBA. Why do we have this current and future success?
> 
> Because we dumped the 3 C's. Doesn't matter how good you think they are on other teams, they simply do not improve our current team. We are 18-12. We score 100+ ppg. We give up 95 ppg. We are not in the luxury tax range. What else do people want?
> 
> ...


DuhBulls you must have missed this post. Look at those winning percentages.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Where is your logic? The three C's are all proven NBA losers and one-dimensional players.
> 
> If you like them so much, go to the Knicks and Hornets forum and proclaim your love.
> 
> Our team is 19-12 and we have the best chance of winning since MJ left this team. That's a fact.


2 of the 3 played on our 47 win team. Best since MJ and PJax left.

The only "winner" we have on this team is Wallace.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Soulful Sides said:


> That would be very aplicable IF, IF Paxson had made the trade thinking it was an even talent for talent swap...or that his team was coming out ahead in talent.
> 
> It's not true. The trade was made for other reasons, the seven game series doesn't exist, and we're significantly above .500.
> 
> Life is _real_ good as it is for the Bulls and their fans.


Amen.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> 2 of the 3 played on our 47 win team. Best since MJ and PJax left.
> 
> The only "winner" we have on this team is Wallace.


Wait until the end of this season. All of our players will be over 0.500. Curry would have to play with the Spurs for 5 years to get back to 0.500.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Our scorers are Deng and Gordon. We don't need Curry.


I would not go that far. We could certainly use a player with his skillset.

Perhaps it is better to say that we didn't need him...as the two organizations that he has been part of have tried to use him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> That would be very aplicable IF, IF Paxson had made the trade thinking it was an even talent for talent swap...or that his team was coming out ahead in talent.
> 
> It's not true. The trade was made for other reasons, the seven game series doesn't exist, and we're significantly above .500.
> 
> Life is _real_ good as it is for the Bulls and their fans.


How, exactly, do we make it to the finals if we don't play a team like the Cavs?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> How, exactly, do we make it to the finals if we don't play a team like the Cavs?


We do not. But that series is hypothetical right now and the trade was not a for talent swap.

We are winning. Why long for past players? When we lose and it is obviously because we do not have a player of his skillset, then the conversation is legitimate.

But we just might be able to win that series, if it comes, without him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> We do not. But that series is hypothetical right now and the trade was not a for talent swap.
> 
> We are winning. Why long for past players? When we lose and it is obviously because we do not have a player of his skillset, then the conversation is legitimate.
> 
> But we just might be able to win that series, if it comes, without him.


Two threads in the forum the past two-three days:

"Paxson: the team needs a long defender at the 4"
"Paxson: the team needs a post scorer"

Go tell Pax we're winning, he's at least seeing the same thing I am.

But, but, but, but we have Allen and Brown!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

As for the question in the thread title...

Krause was not right.

You don't bulid a team by throwing three HSers on the court and expect them to develop.

It was near impossible to develop the two bigs at the same time.

Bob Hill has done a terrific job developing young bigs, but he's only had to do it with one at a time.

And, of course, I cannot think of anything more idiotic than trading Brand for Chandler.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Two threads in the forum the past two-three days:
> 
> "Paxson: the team needs a long defender at the 4"
> "Paxson: the team needs a post scorer"
> ...



Why does long defender = Curry, but not Brand? Ditto for post scorer? We had him too. Why does Curry get the spilled milk love but not Brand?

I do not think saying these things automatically means "I made a mistake when I moved Curry". Why do you?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Why does long defender = Curry, but not Brand? Ditto for post scorer? We had him too. Why does Curry get the spilled milk love but not Brand?
> 
> I do not think saying these things automatically means "I made a mistake when I moved Curry". Why do you?


Your post came after my previous one. Feel free to restate the question, if you still have it.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Your post came after my previous one. Feel free to restate the question, if you still have it.


Why does Curry get _so much of_ the spilled milk love _instead of_ Brand?

I do not think saying these things automatically means "I made a mistake when I moved Curry". Why do you?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

I think not stringing out his development like this was a positive for the organization. His coach is already talking next season.

_“Eddy will be a much better player next year playing out of double-teams than he will be this year.”_ -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/sports/basketball/31knicks.html?ref=basketball


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Why does Curry get _so much of_ the spilled milk love _instead of_ Brand?
> 
> I do not think saying these things automatically means "I made a mistake when I moved Curry". Why do you?


I'm no Krause fan. I think he was vile and obnoxious and nobody wanted to play for him. Brand was traded a LONG time ago, I don't see how it's relevent at this point. (And traded by Krause)

Who's Pax going to go out and get to fill either/both those roles he says we need?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If the Bulls had Curry...jeez. That's the one thing they need is a low post scorer, and there aren't that many better than Eddy. It's not like defensively he's that big of a problem, because the last year the Bulls had him, they were one of the top defensive teams even then.

But you have to remember, the Bulls didn't willingly trade Curry. Curry didn't want to give up his DNA, and Pax had made it an ultimatitum in the negotiations so his hand was forced, particurly when the Knicks patched together a deal. If Pax had his way, he'd have Curry's DNA, and Curry playing in the middle for a long long time.

The only question about Ben Wallace is whether or not the Bulls would have actually seen him as a need after another season of Curry/Chandler. Losing Curry and coming into camp out of shape seemed to wreck Chandler's season last year. You can only speculate as to how good the Bulls would have been last year if they had merely brought back the same team from the year before.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I would agree that Krause understood the chemistry of his team when Rodman was acquired. However, in a fatal career ending mistake, he was clueless in understanding how to build that type of chemistry when he wasn't gifted the GOAT player with a matching work ethic.


I thought Krause understood chemistry quite well when nabbing players for the season right after MJ retired the first time.

He grabbed Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington and Pete Myers off the NBA scrap heap that off-season and the Pippen lead Bulls won 55 games and were a whisper from winning another NBA title, IMO.... at least getting to the finals.




> And I think you missed alot if you think Krause understood chemistry. See Jalen Rose acquision.


Isn't it pretty well established that Krause didn't want to make the Jalen Rose trade? That he wanted to keep Artest and Miller? The only reason that trade ended up going down is that the Pacers agreed to take Ron Mercer. The rest of the org felt they needed a star. Krause, predictably, wanted to hang onto his young players.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Krause was not right.
> 
> You don't bulid a team by throwing three HSers on the court and expect them to develop.
> 
> It was near impossible to develop the two bigs at the same time.


:rock: :worthy:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The key difference between the Brand trade and the Curry trade is the expected benefit from the person making the deal.

Krause traded Brand, IMO, to land a future superstar and to hedge against a potential problem with Brand's agent when it came time to resign him. Chandler, despite all his flaws, is a top 10 rebounder and shot blocker which is a valuable NBA player. Brand is better, no doubt, but Chandler isn't a stiff. 

Paxson's Curry trade was a painted into the corner act of desperation where the only benefit Paxson already admitted to is "found money." It may turn out OK, but the Knicks look decent this season and unless Tyrus turns out to be a multi time all-star type (which he could) I'd rather have a center than can drop 18 points in the paint on you at 55% shooting.

People moan about the Brand trade all the time. But at least we got a damn good 7 footer in return, although we had to wait years for him to develop, which can be the price of drafting a high schooler.

Paxson's Chandler for PJ Brown trade is far, far, far, far, worse than Brand for Chandler, IMO.

Brand has still not shown me that he can be the best player on a great NBA team. Its not like Krause dumped a superstar (to this point).

BTW, what's up with Brand's regression this season?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The key difference between the Brand trade and the Curry trade is the expected benefit from the person making the deal.
> 
> Krause traded Brand, IMO, to land a future superstar and to hedge against a potential problem with Brand's agent when it came time to resign him. Chandler, despite all his flaws, is a top 10 rebounder and shot blocker which is a valuable NBA player. Brand is better, no doubt, but Chandler isn't a stiff.
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree with bolded part. Brand for Chandler deal was/is by far worst trade of all in post-MJ era.

You only look at Tyson-PJ deal in terms of talent vs talent trade but the whole point of this trade was not the exchange of talents, but the removal of redundant player (Tyson vs. Wallace) and cap release at the end of the year. So in that sense Paxon did just fine.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Was trading Jason Caffey for David Vaughn a good chemistry move?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> the whole point of this trade was not the exchange of talents, but the removal of redundant player (Tyson vs. Wallace)


Paxson was just craving for a defensive big man on the radio the other day. I think the whole "redundant" player argument was invented by message board posters and the press. According to Paxson, he wants a defensive player to put next to Wallace. He says the offense is fine.



> and cap release at the end of the year. So in that sense Paxon did just fine.


Yes. It was a salary and Skiles dump.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson was just craving for a defensive big man on the radio the other day. I think the whole "redundant" player argument was invented by message board posters and the press. According to Paxson, he wants a defensive player to put next to Wallace. He says the offense is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It was a salary and Skiles dump.


Good day.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Brand was traded a LONG time ago, I don't see how it's relevent at this point. (And traded by Krause)


Eddy too. It is approaching three seasons. But why so many recriminations with Eddy when so many other players could have helped too that we passed on?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

OT:

During 3Cs days in Bulls, supporters of JC and TC claimed that the part of reason they struggled was the fact they both played out of their natural positions, insisting that JC is best at PG, not SG and TC is best at 4, not C.

Now many of them keep telling us how much they improved once they left Bulls and etc.

But look which position they play in their new teams most of time? JC as SG off the bench and TC as a starting center.

Irony?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The key difference between the Brand trade and the Curry trade is the expected benefit from the person making the deal.
> 
> Krause traded Brand, IMO, to land a future superstar and to hedge against a potential problem with Brand's agent when it came time to resign him. Chandler, despite all his flaws, is a top 10 rebounder and shot blocker which is a valuable NBA player. Brand is better, no doubt, but Chandler isn't a stiff.
> 
> ...


I thought the trade was to free up cash to keep the players we have. If so, that is good. It was never a talent for talent trade. Only in that one, ONE perspective can it be considered "far, far, far, far, worse". But players are moved for all manner of reasons, and Paxsons dice roll worked because we still ended up with a rebounder and shot blocker.

We are a sucessful team, and every successful team benefits in one way or another from a peculiar roll of the dice.

I do not understand the criticism in light of how well the team performs.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson was just craving for a defensive big man on the radio the other day.



I think his desire is less intense than craving. It is wishful thinking.

_"The one thing I think we'd all like is the guy who plays with his back to the basket and scores those buckets inside, and maybe run some offense through [him]," Paxson said. "We'd like to have another [scorer] to complement what Ben can do."
--
"But *we're not at that point*. And I don't know of any of those guys available in the league right now.

"It's not like you can call another team every day and expect to strike up a conversation about a great player. _http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,6514824.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> considered "far, far, far, far, worse". But players are moved for all manner of reasons, and Paxsons dice roll worked because we still ended up with a rebounder and shot blocker.


I think that Brand was moved for similar reasons as Chandler. Cheapness, along with inability to get along with the org (from him or his people) and a lack of belief in his future production (for whatever reason).

In Brand's case it was the MAX salary coming around the bend and an internal belief that he could not be "THE GUY" and an inability to get along with his agent (supposedly).

We all know why Chandler was dealt.



> We are a sucessful team,


The Bulls are riding high right now and looking great. They still have accomplished next to nothing under Paxson.

0 playoff series wins
0 division titles
0 conference titles
0 NBA Championships.

Hopefully this season is the one where some of those goose eggs start to disappear. Until that point, we can question whatever moves are the wrong ones, especially when they are as blatant as Chandler for PJ Brown and Curry for smoke and what turned out to be found money. Especially when the GM gets on the radio and says he wants a defensive big or a big guy who can score points in the paint.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I thought Krause understood chemistry quite well when nabbing players for the season right after MJ retired the first time.
> 
> He grabbed Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington and Pete Myers off the NBA scrap heap that off-season and the Pippen lead Bulls won 55 games and were a whisper from winning another NBA title, IMO.... at least getting to the finals.


Well, Buls came within a whisper of the Eastern Conference finals and the three you mentioned were good pickups. Krause was good at plug and play with role players once PJax put in the triangle and there was the MJ/Pip core. However, that's role that 29 other GMs would kill for. For most of the GMs a guy like Wennington or Kerr just didn't have the same value without the system and without MJ/Pippen. 

Krause did more than Kupcheck, but is Mitch Kupcheck a good GM because he added some role players around Kobe and Shaq to the tune of 3 titles?



kukoc4ever said:


> Isn't it pretty well established that Krause didn't want to make the Jalen Rose trade?


Not to me. This wasn't a money saving deal. Can't imagine that JR forced it on Krause.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> This wasn't a money saving deal. Can't imagine that JR forced it on Krause.


IMO, it was. The luster was fading from those championship trophies. The product was utter crap that season. The towers were not ready. Jamal was a twig. Ron Mercer was our "star." Artest was going crazy. Miller was not all-star level Miller. 

The UC was only 1/2 full on most nights and the team was perceived to be going nowhere. I believe that many in the org felt that the team needed a "star" to be the guy and make the team better. Jalen did both of these things. He did take the team on his shoulders (although he clearly was not good enough to take Marshall and the gang of kids and misfits to the NBA Playoffs). But the Bulls were clearly better after the Indy trade. We were beating teams. We were in a lot of games. The mood was better. Fans were more interested. 

The pre-Jalen Bulls were the darkest times for the Bulls franchise. I think that people in the org felt the deal needed to be made from a revenue generation standpoint.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Krause did more than Kupcheck, but is Mitch Kupcheck a good GM because he added some role players around Kobe and Shaq to the tune of 3 titles?


I was just using that example to show that Krause had some idea about plugging role players into an existing system, which shows some understanding of basketball chemistry, not saying that's the sole reason he was a good GM, although it is one of the reasons I think he was a good GM.

Post MJ, I'll rip Krause all day for being a poor manager, basically an insecure control freak who had a huge ego and took grand swing for the fences gambles on rebuilding the team and struck out. Krause never understood the human element of the game/team, which is what Phil thrived at as a coach and Paxson is better at as a GM.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I think his desire is less intense than craving. It is wishful thinking.
> 
> _"The one thing I think we'd all like is the guy who plays with his back to the basket and scores those buckets inside, and maybe run some offense through [him]," Paxson said. "We'd like to have another [scorer] to complement what Ben can do."
> --
> ...


That's the quote from the paper about an offensive guy.

If you listen to his THE SCORE interview, you'll hear him talk about wanting a defensive player.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> IMO, it was. The luster was fading from those championship trophies. The product was utter crap that season. The towers were not ready. Jamal was a twig. Ron Mercer was our "star." Artest was going crazy. Miller was not all-star level Miller.
> 
> The UC was only 1/2 full on most nights and the team was perceived to be going nowhere. I believe that many in the org felt that the team needed a "star" to be the guy and make the team better. Jalen did both of these things. He did take the team on his shoulders (although he clearly was not good enough to take Marshall and the gang of kids and misfits to the NBA Playoffs). But the Bulls were clearly better after the Indy trade. We were beating teams. We were in a lot of games. The mood was better. Fans were more interested.
> 
> The pre-Jalen Bulls were the darkest times for the Bulls franchise. I think that people in the org felt the deal needed to be made from a revenue generation standpoint.


Assuming your are correct, if Krause had any inkling how bad Jalen Rose would be for the Bulls organization, he should have told JR to fire him rather than force the deal. As it was, including the Rose deal, Krause's rebuilding was a debacle.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Assuming your are correct, if Krause had any inkling how bad Jalen Rose would be for the Bulls organization, he should have told JR to fire him rather than force the deal. As it was, including the Rose deal, Krause's rebuilding was a debacle.


I don't think anyone felt that the Jalen Rose trade would end up as it did. I'd put my money on Krause wanting to stick with his pick Artest and Miller than trade for Rose and it was pretty clear he didn't want to deal them away. Those were his babies. Some of his "genius" master strokes. It wasn't until Mercer was included in the deal that he went along with it. Mercer sucked. Holy **** he sucked. 

I also think Jalen Rose is unfairly demonized. He is what he is. He clearly wasn't the player I saw on the Pacers NBA Finals team with the Bulls, although he was surrounded by a much better cast on that team than he was with the Bulls. I think, like many other humans, he was working his tail off for a paycheck and once a massive, guaranteed contract was ensured, he didn't feel the need to bust his tail off anymore to the level that he was. (cough cough hinrich??? cough cough) All that being said, the Bulls were clearly a better NBA basketball team after that trade was made. It was night and day. 

Jalen Rose giving a workmanlike 85% every night isn't really a great role model for a bunch of young players, I agree.

One thing to remember is that Paxson felt strong enough about a Jalen Rose led team to guarantee playoffs.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The trade for Rose was completely on Krause. Reinsdorf doesn't tell his key employees how to do their jobs, only the results expected.

The Rose trade turned out badly, but it wasn't stupid on its face. Artest was and is a whack job. Miller was going to have to give way to Curry and therefore was going to be a backup for the Bulls, but as he's proven, he's starter material. Mercer was a contract Krause was trying to unload.

In Krause's mind, he was giving up VERY disposable assets.

In return he got a veteran who could score and distribute. Krause took a risk that Rose's reputation as a bit of a head case wouldn't be a problem because in Chicago, he'd be the man.

In theory, it mighta worked. It didn't. Maybe Krause's 2nd worst mistake (behind the Brand trade).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> The trade for Rose was completely on Krause. Reinsdorf doesn't tell his key employees how to do their jobs, only the results expected.


I read several times that Krause was fighting people in the org about that deal. He didn't want to do it, while others were in favor of it.

I think you are discounting how strongly attached Krause is to "his guys" of which Artest and Miller to an extent belonged. I don't think those assets were considered disposable by Krause. Krause's teary eyed speech at his banner raising ceremony showed how strongly he felt about his guys and how loyal he is to his people.

If the Pacers don't take Mercer, that trade does not happen. Bottom line. 

Ultimately its on Krause, since he was the GM, but it didn't 
match his philosophy,


The Full Boat gamble and the Mercer/EROB signings were the moves that really doomed the guy. Lots of holes on the ship plugging moves after those.




> In theory, it mighta worked. It didn't. Maybe Krause's 2nd worst mistake (behind the Brand trade).


It did work short term. The Bulls were a better team. It was a better environment for Curry and Chandler after that deal. But, Rose wasn't worth the $$$ he was being paid and wasn't an ideal role model by any stretch.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

It's hard to believe Ron Mercer is only 30 years old. This stuff seems like it happened a lifetime ago.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

This is starting to sound like a fairy tale.



kukoc4ever said:


> All that being said, the Bulls were clearly a better NBA basketball team after that [rose] trade was made. It was night and day.


2001-2002

Bulls pre-Rose: 12-36
Bulls post-Rose: 9- 21

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/roseja01_2002.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millebr01_2002.html

OK, there is some improvement there. Night and Day? No. After you factor out start of the season's 1-10 start (including the circus trip), it's the same.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I read several times that Krause was fighting people in the org about that deal. He didn't want to do it, while others were in favor of it.
> 
> ...
> If the Pacers don't take Mercer, that trade does not happen. Bottom line.


But the Pacers did take Mercer, so it was Krause's deal.

It's just like someone years from now saying that the Tyrus Thomas isn't Paxson's deal b/c it wouldn't have happened without Viktor Khryapa. :thinking2:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> But the Pacers did take Mercer, so it was Krause's deal.


Right, but it changes the trade from Krause salivating over Jalen Rose and aching to rid himself from future all-stars Artest and Miller to Krause begrudgingly capitulating to internal organizational pressures only if he also gets to dump a crappy contract he wanted to get rid of.

He would have kept the players we miss if the contract dump wasn't included. Then we would be ripping Krause much more for having Mercer on the books all that time and for the even worse disaster the Artest/Miller/Mercer Bulls were going to be that season. That team was over. Like I said, those were easily the darkest days at the UC post MJ.



> It's just like someone years from now saying that the Tyrus Thomas isn't Paxson's deal b/c it wouldn't have happened without Viktor Khryapa. :thinking2:


No, because Paxson would have drafted Tyrus Thomas either way. If that deal didn't go down, Paxson would have still drafted Tyrus Thomas.

If Mercer isn't included in that deal, the trade does not happen.

Disagree with me if you want, that's cool, but Krause would have preferred to keep his young players over trading for Jalen Rose, unless he was also able to dump the Ron Mercer mistake.

As for the mood changing at the UC after the Rose trade, it * was * night and day. Feel free to disagree with you want, but the quality of basketball (such as the basic ability to execute a pick and roll) and the feeling at the UC changed dramatically and immediately after the Jalen Rose trade. I can’t prove it to you by linking to databaseBasketball.com, I can only give you my opinion.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I don't think anyone felt that the Jalen Rose trade would end up as it did. I'd put my money on Krause wanting to stick with his pick Artest and Miller than trade for Rose and it was pretty clear he didn't want to deal them away. Those were his babies. Some of his "genius" master strokes. It wasn't until Mercer was included in the deal that he went along with it. Mercer sucked. Holy **** he sucked.


There are very few nba players that I use the term “sucked” about. There is such an elite fraternity of athletes that so few who criticize them can only dream about regarding the degree of expertise to ascend to such heights that I’m always dubious when fans use this term.
*HOWEVER*, mercer truly, truly sucked. His *effort* sucked, his *style of game *sucked, his *shot selection *sucked. I could go on, but I’ll recall the zenith of mercer’s sucktitude from this witness was when mercer got a steal (or some such) against the 40 year old Jordan wizards. The game was in the balance, and mercer headed down court for a layup to either seal the game, take the lead or whatever. Jordan hawked him down from behind not only blocking his shot, but engulfing the ball from against the backboard, saving the day for the wiz at home. Just another routine GREAT play from the GOAT, but it showed me how far the bull had fallen from the glory years, and the “best” player was eaten alive by a 40 year old. Yes, mercer, now out of the league and barely a blip on the nba screen, sucked.



> I also think Jalen Rose is unfairly demonized. He is what he is. He clearly wasn't the player I saw on the Pacers NBA Finals team with the Bulls, although he was surrounded by a much better cast on that team than he was with the Bulls. I think, like many other humans, he was working his tail off for a paycheck and once a massive, guaranteed contract was ensured, he didn't feel the need to bust his tail off anymore to the level that he was. (cough cough hinrich??? cough cough) All that being said, the Bulls were clearly a better NBA basketball team after that trade was made. It was night and day.


Agree 100%. Jalen himself said the team would go as far as eddy and Tyson took them; he seemed to want no part of being a “savior”



> Jalen Rose giving a workmanlike 85% every night isn't really a great role model for a bunch of young players, I agree.


See above.



> One thing to remember is that Paxson felt strong enough about a Jalen Rose led team to guarantee playoffs.


I seem to recall Jamal Crawford stating this, NOT john paxson.



> As for the mood changing at the UC after the Rose trade, it * was * night and day. Feel free to disagree with you want, but the quality of basketball (such as the basic ability to execute a pick and roll) and the feeling at the UC changed dramatically and immediately after the Jalen Rose trade. I can’t prove it to you by linking to databaseBasketball.com, I can only give you my opinion.


Yes, I too agree with this assessment. Result or not, the move for jalen had as much (if not more) to do with PR than a talent exchange. losing was taking its toll, moreso (imo) the way the team lost. huge blowouts at home; subsequent to the crawford playoff prediction, in the first game of the season the bull was blown out at home by 30+ by the wizards; the season went downhill from there. 

Rose said all the right things and initially things felt hunky-dory, that too is my recollection. I believe Krause didn’t want to give up on his guys, but it was clear after a short while that the support system (floyd and Cartwright) weren’t the right guys to get the job done with that mix of guys. Fans were in intitially in favor of the rose trade based on the media output, but there was backlash in forums like these where a little more basketball acumen is bandied about. I wasn’t against it, but it was very apparent rose wasn't a lead guy, therefore in hindsight it was ill-conceived, whether krause or others outside of the gm office were the engineers.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> I seem to recall Jamal Crawford stating this, NOT john paxson.


Paxson guaranteed playoffs before the 2003-2004 season, his first season on the job. "No excuses" were allowed.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Bullhitter,

Are you talking about the game that was in washington in the spring. If so i was at the game ( I live just north of washington ) and mercer dogged it down the court and MJ sprinted to catch up to him and blocked his shot. In one play it summed up mercer's career.

david


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls are riding high right now and looking great. They still have accomplished next to nothing under Paxson.
> 
> 0 playoff series wins
> 0 division titles
> ...


You have a extremely demanding requirements for a still rebuilding team. Yes goose-eggs in those 4. But you don't get rid of the goose-eggs without improving the win/loss record, roster quality, player development, and the trajectory of the team. Paxson has accomplished all of that. 

I just do not think it is right to call him basically a failure, a person who has spent time and money and accomplished next to nothing for it.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Paxson guaranteed playoffs before the 2003-2004 season, his first season on the job. "No excuses" were allowed.


the "no excuses" mantra i do recall, but i'll respectfully disagree; it's water now, since the team has been purged of all the excuse makers.



> Are you talking about the game that was in washington in the spring. If so i was at the game ( I live just north of washington ) and mercer dogged it down the court and MJ sprinted to catch up to him and blocked his shot. In one play it summed up mercer's career


if jordan pinned the ball and took it from the backboard, yes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> the "no excuses" mantra i do recall, but i'll respectfully disagree; it's water now, since the team has been purged of all the excuse makers.


Paxson guaranteed playoffs when he first took over and called Curry and Chandler the "cornerstones of the franchise."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Speaking of Elton Brand. Tonight he had 32 points, 6 rebounds, and *8 blocked shots.*


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

Not to disagree to much with what u guys are saying.

1. on Ron Mercer,yes he didn't live up to the hype,but he def had talent and the atheltic ablility to be a good solid pro.In Fact he was probably our most athelitic guard sense mj,still he could never play great D,or get a break IMO.Also he didn't have the greatest work eithic because he got paided,but did have 1 good season.Don't forget he did avg 20 ppg for us 1 year he and brand i believe although he didn't help in the W column.So yes he wasn't a great fit,but we put to much expection on him and money and i don't think he could have ever lived up to the hype.Just wasn't a great fit for a big city.


Now to E-rob,he too i liked,but i wasn't sure why in the hell he got 11 mil a season.That was a terrible contract,Still I could see the potenial that krause saw,because E-Rob was 1 of the most atheletic player's in league when heathy,but just never wanted to be great.I think he should be the poster boy for those who work hard until they get paid in the nba.Because if he had to work to get paid i bet he would still be a bull right now.Because he was talented without a doubt,just got lazy and content on being avg.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Paxson guaranteed playoffs when he first took over and called Curry and Chandler the "cornerstones of the franchise."


couldn't find anything to support these assertions in the bull history, but fine and dandy, if that’s the way you recall it. at any rate, since pax inherited curry and chandler and they were already in place, what else would he have said about those two. He wouldn’t have been the first, and he tried to make it work for a reasonable amount of time, imo. and since those two are still floundering away not really impacting their current employers, well.....

Further, not knowing the absolute dogs he had on the roster at the time it’s not unreasonable for him to have believed that a team of rose, leading the “cornerstones” (lmfao) and the mercurially inconsistent jamal *could* do just that. Was he wrong? I guess, but the more important thing to note was that as quickly as he discovered his mistake, he went about correcting it, unlike crumbs who kept extrapolating his mistakes ad naseum.

Btw, I can’t take any more of this revisionist history; it’s 2007, pax has moved on; so should i.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> Further, *not knowing* the absolute dogs he had on the roster at the time it’s not unreasonable for him to have believed that a team of rose, leading the “cornerstones” (lmfao) and the mercurially inconsistent jamal *could* do just that. Was he wrong? I guess,


Not true. He was the color commentator for the Bulls for a few years before becoming GM. He broadcast every game. He traveled with the team. There were few human beings closer to the Chicago Bulls than John Paxson was. And then he guaranteed playoffs.




> but the more important thing to note was that as quickly as he discovered his mistake, he went about correcting it, unlike crumbs who kept extrapolating his mistakes ad naseum.


One month after guaranteeing playoffs he traded Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall for AD and JYD and gave up on the season. OK.

He supposedly wanted to resign Curry and called him "an important part" of the Bulls 47 win season.

He made Chandler a very rich man by choosing to resign him.

The Curry / Chandler stuff was several years after he took over, so he didn't quickly make any decision on them... and even then he supposedly only traded Curry b/c of the heart issue (he wanted to lock him up) and signed Chandler because he "kinda had" to.





> Btw, I can’t take any more of this revisionist history;


No revisions were made to the above account. Its how it went down.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Since I thought I was paying attention and don't remember things quite as other people do, I gotta ask.

Paxson is an always has been a fairly careful chooser of words. I don't remember him taking over and going Joe "Willie" Namath on us and saying, "we'll make the playoffs this season...I guarantee it." In fact, given the man's personality, I find it hard to imagine him saying such a thing. 

I CAN easily hear him saying that "our goal this season is to make the playoffs."

These are very different statements, IMO.

Does anyone recall what he actually said.

I do recall that when he first took over he was very humble and didn't seem to want to rock the boat too much. 

After a month or so, he changed. It seemed that he began to accept the reality that he was RESPONSIBLE for the product on the floor, and that the product didn't play defense worth a damn and didn't play hard on a consistent basis.

He may not have been sure as to what to do, but he became determined to change the attitude of the team. He made what I consider some courageous decisions and the team we see now is the result.

As presently constituted, it ain't a championship team IMO, but it's a team that is worlds apart from what he inherited a few seasons ago.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.realgm.com/src_twoplusthefoul/3/20041015/a_season_of_no_excuses_for_bulls_gm_paxson/



> Paxson vowed to quickly turn around the misfortunes of an organization featuring a plethora of young talents, going as far as to guarantee a post-season appearance coming off the heels of a 30-52 season.
> 
> “It’s really important and actually a goal of ours,” said Paxson upon his hiring. “We are not going to hide behind it. We’ve done it lately, not putting expectations on our team because they are young. But at some point, I think everybody has to accept the fact that we are in this business to win and get in the playoffs.”
> 
> Paxson proceeded to hand out local media members T-shirts with the motto ‘No Excuses’ draped all over them, and sign a cast of over-the-hill thirty-somethings, including Kendall Gill and ‘prized’ free-agent re-acquisition Pippen, who was signed to a lucrative two-year, $10 million contract despite coming off arthroscopic knee surgery which sidelined him for 18 games the season prior [Pippen would only play in 23 games for Chicago in ‘03-’04 due to injury and announced his retirement on Oct. 5], in hopes of being the final pieces to the Bulls’ playoff puzzle.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.realgm.com/src_twoplusthefoul/3/20041015/a_season_of_no_excuses_for_bulls_gm_paxson/


So what is real reason behind this constant reminding us of Paxon's guarantee of playoff back then?

That he misjudged the team back then regarding the playoff?
Or that he judged the team correctly but pulled the trigger too fast?

To me, it seemed like he misjudged the team before the seaon started and realized that we weren't going anywhere and pulled the trigger and started the first step of building a team according to his own philosophy. 

To me, all the Rose trade stand for is that Paxon really started to have his own accountability as GM and start to try his way to build a team. I won't criticize that in a GM and I will cheer for it.

So again, what is your point?
That Paxon's judgement of team back then was flawed?
Or that his judgement was right (about playoff) and he should have given that team more time to back on the track?
And look where we are since Paxon made that first step in his building of the team since Rose trade? Where is the problem?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't particularly care either way, because I don't think it's of much consequence, but K4E, there isn't anything quoted there that constitutes a guarantee. He may well have done so, but I don't see those quotes supporting it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Speaking of Elton Brand. Tonight he had 32 points, 6 rebounds, and *8 blocked shots.*



It sure is a bummer that Pax traded him away. Drat.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> To me, it seemed like he misjudged the team before the seaon started and realized that we weren't going anywhere and pulled the trigger and started the first step of building a team according to his own philosophy.


Fine, that's a reasonable interpretation. The very high expectations and crappy start certainly gave him the capital necessary to make such a bold trade one month into the season.

Writing that team off right after the circus trip after Rose was suffering from a broken hand and Chandler was gimpy as hell seems questionable, but he could have been right. We'll never know. The Chandler injury certainly would make things tough. The next season the team started ****ty and that ended up being the year the Bulls were #3 in the East. 

As for why I posted the article, its b/c posters were questioning if Paxson guaranteed playoffs and then blew up the team one month later.

He did.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't particularly care either way, because I don't think it's of much consequence, but K4E, there isn't anything quoted there that constitutes a guarantee. He may well have done so, but I don't see those quotes supporting it.


The author of the article also says that Paxson guaranteed playoffs. Is he mistaken as well?


I was sent a letter from Paxson (form letter for season tix holders) that guaranteed playoffs.


Talk about revisionist history....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-620353/Paxson-pleads-for-more-patience.html



> The *preseason promise of a playoff berth* seems unattainable. The lottery balls are building. The team slogan, once "No Excuses," has reverted to "Please Have Patience."
> 
> General manager John Paxson said Tuesday he has no intention of trading Eddy Curry or Tyson Chandler and believes they still can someday lead the franchise back to glory.


Anyone up for some ATS on Mike McGraw?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20031031/ai_n12527956



> This whole season, we have been told again and again, is about no excuses. *Playoffs or bust.*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3365550/Bad-start-dooms-Cartwright-Sports.html



> *For nearly two seasons, John Paxson analyzed Bill Cartwright's coaching ability as a member of the Bulls' radio team.*
> 
> Once he took over as general manager last April, Paxson tried to heighten expectations for the Bulls. He distributed T-shirts to the players and staff that read "No Excuses" on the front and *"We Will Win"* on the back.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The author of the article also says that Paxson guaranteed playoffs. Is he mistaken as well?
> 
> 
> I was sent a letter from Paxson (form letter for season tix holders) that guaranteed playoffs.
> ...



Oh, get over yourself. I specifically said I'm not disputing that he said it. I was just pointing out that the quotes there didn't contain it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I specifically said I'm not disputing that he said it.



Right. You said he "may well" have said it.

I'm showing you that he did in fact guarantee playoffs. (no "may well" needed)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right. You said he "may well" have said it.
> 
> I'm showing you that he did in fact guarantee playoffs. (no "may well" needed)


That's fine. I thought the "revisionist history" and "ATS" comments were aimed at me, which I viewed as unfair. If not, I apologize.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> “It’s really important and actually a goal of ours,” said Paxson upon his hiring. “We are not going to hide behind it. We’ve done it lately, not putting expectations on our team because they are young. But at some point, I think everybody has to accept the fact that we are in this business to win and get in the playoffs.”


Yeah, that sounds like what Paxson would have said. Kinda hard to imagine that he woulda said anything other than that.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Not true. He was the color commentator for the Bulls for a few years before becoming GM. He broadcast every game. He traveled with the team. There were few human beings closer to the Chicago Bulls than John Paxson was. And then he guaranteed playoffs.


Seeing and color commenting on said dogs is different in my view than having to be subjected to them as their employer, which is WHY the rose/marshall deal (who wasn’t bad, imo) deals happened swiftly but also with the beginnings of careful scrutiny of the 3 C's.



> One month after guaranteeing playoffs he traded Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall for AD and JYD and gave up on the season. OK.


i applaud the quick hook for guys that didn't fit his philosphy. unacknowledged by many fans, having a philosophy and being able to implement is huge in moving in a successful direction. debate it to the heavens, but the championship teams have that.



> He supposedly wanted to resign Curry and called him "an important part" of the Bulls 47 win season.


it didn't work out.....shyt happens....i look forward to the bull seeing the knick in the playoffs (1-8, 2-7 it could happen); the hype would be off the chain. it would great for the fans.



> He made Chandler a very rich man by choosing to resign him.


i liked chandler, i wish him well, but i've moved on and i'm of a mind that chandler, paxson, NOK, and the bull are happy. critiquing pax's gm'ing over and over on these issues is :sigh: 



> The Curry / Chandler stuff was several years after he took over, so he didn't quickly make any decision on them... and even then he supposedly only traded Curry b/c of the heart issue (he wanted to lock him up) and signed Chandler because he "kinda had" to.


All true, but by this time he’d brought in more of “his guys” and he could afford some patience. They were bigs, and they were young, he knows they don’t grow on trees. He found a coach he was comfortable (and with a shared philosophy) with and there began a "method to the madness" (particularly after rebounding after the 0-9 start) so to speak, something that was obviously missing with the former mix of guys. Those kinds of decisions tend to take more time.

btw, on the "no excuses", "playoff guarantee" thing; my recollection is that pax wanted to instill a level of accountability (and in interviews since) with incoming players. having viewed comfy vets like rose, changing the culture of losing (particularly the *way* they were losing) meant establishing a level of professionalism, not deviating from it, and individuals operating outside those two mantras would not be around long. in my view, this is not material for criticism since the team has moved forward every year if not necessarily in wins, in construct.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> btw, on the "no excuses", "playoff guarantee" thing; my recollection is that pax wanted to instill a level of accountability (and in interviews since) with incoming players. having viewed comfy vets like rose, changing the culture of losing (particularly the *way* they were losing) meant establishing a level of professionalism, not deviating from it, and individuals operating outside those two mantras would not be around long.


Funny, that isn't what was sold to the fans before the season started. After the strong finish from the previous season, that squad was being sold as a legitimate playoff team. That's the way I interpreted it. That's the way Mike McGraw did in his article as well. So did the RealGM author. DaBullz remembers it that was as well. 

In hindsight, you can spin it they way you are if you wish. And I do question why the bar was set so high (no excuses, playoffs or bust) for that 2003-2004 team while the next season got the comfy "through thick and thin." (and this team was the one that didn’t get torn apart post losing circus trip and ended up winning 47 games led by curry, chandler, hinrich and the gang).

This is the first season since "no excuses" we've seen high expectations coming from the organization. Something Paxson has dodged since his first season on the job. Of course, he could have been using those high expectations to do the house cleaning that he wanted to do all along. Kind of a duplicitous action, but it would not surprise me if that's what "no excuses" was all about. 




> in my view, this is not material for criticism since the team has moved forward every year if not necessarily in wins, in construct.


Yah, I'm more of a wins guy. 

Any team where moves are made in the off-season changes in construct.

The only reason Curry isn’t a Bull (according to Paxson) is the overreaction to an irregular heartbeat. Not quite sure how that meets whatever "moving forward in construct" point you were making.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i applaud the quick hook for guys that didn't fit his philosphy.


Marshall?


There was no quick hook for Erob. Or Tim Thomas. Or Frank Williams.

Only Rose was dealt one month after playoffs were guaranteed as he was fighting through a broken hand, and Marshall had to be sacrificed to do it. Only Rose got “the quick hook” that you admire.

Its stunning to see a playoff guarantee issued, and then given up on and the team blown up in a month. 

I guess that's having a philosophy and sticking to it. Or maybe its just getting rid of the guy you never liked much and now having the capital to do it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is the first season since "no excuses" we've seen high expectations coming from the organization. *Something Paxson has dodged since his first season on the job.* Of course, he could have been using those high expectations to do the house cleaning that he wanted to do all along. Kind of a duplicitous action, but it would not surprise me if that's what "no excuses" was all about.




How is guaranteeing playoffs in any way consistent with this?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Marshall?
> 
> 
> There was no quick hook for Erob. Or Tim Thomas. Or Frank Williams.
> ...



Rose was supposed to be the team leader. Those other guys you cite were not. I mean Frank Williams? Come on.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Rose was supposed to be the team leader. Those other guys you cite were not. I mean Frank Williams? Come on.


Paxson has no problem stashing guys away on the bench or sending them home, as we've seen several times. (TT, EROB, Williams)

While I can understand that it would be difficult to do this to a player that was still reasonably productive in Jalen Rose, he had no problem doing this to the guy that was on the cover of the Bulls yearbook (EROB) or to a player making the MAX (TT).

In the end, its simply stunning to see a GM feel strong enough to make the realistic expectation making the playoffs and then blow the whole thing up 1 month later to immediately DUMP at all costs a guy with a busted hand.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> How is guaranteeing playoffs in any way consistent with this?


His first full season was the "no excuses" year.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> His first full season was the "no excuses" year.



Right. So? You said he has avoided setting expectations high. How is guaranteeing playoffs consistent with that? Or, are you arguing that he got burned once setting expectations high and now therefore avoids it? If so, then I comprehend.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> he got burned once setting expectations high and now therefore avoids it?


yes.

It is interesting that getting rid of the cancer Jalen Rose and getting the valuable AD in return didn't bump the "no excuses" playoff guarantee up a notch.

But, there was no playoff guarantee or "no excuses" the next season. Just "through thick and thin." Quite the change.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> yes.



Does this bother you? I don't really care whether Paxson talks up the team. I care how the team plays.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Marshall?
> 
> 
> There was no quick hook for Erob. Or Tim Thomas. Or Frank Williams.
> ...



I don't see the Erob, TT, or FWill situations are being the same as Rose.

At the end of the day though, what I wonder is why the Rose trade seems like a mistake to you. Yes, we did not get fantastic players back in return. However, what has Jalen done since then that indicates the pieces obtained for him weren't appropriate?

In my opinion, it's the loss of Marshall that stings more. However, considering we're currently sitting with the most wins in the East right now, I'm having a hard time being too worked up about it. Yell would be severely redundant on this team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Does this bother you? I don't really care whether Paxson talks up the team. I care how the team plays.


I do care if the GM of the team feels that a team is good enough to make the playoffs and turns out to be poor.

I also care if a GM makes whipsaw changes of opinion over the course of a month from playoff guarantee to blow up the team. , especially if he got to view up close and travel with the personnel of the team he inherited for over two years as the teams commentator.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Is the argument that Paxson is a bad GM, a mediocre GM, or a flawed GM? Who would be a good replacement?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> In my opinion, it's the loss of Marshall that stings more. However, considering we're currently sitting with the most wins in the East right now, I'm having a hard time being too worked up about it. Yell would be severely redundant on this team.


None of it stings, given that it was so long ago.

Having to give away Marshall did seem pretty foolish at the time.

The Bulls are playing great right now. I just posted a couple times on this thread and then was confronted with "link?" "source?" and then a dash of ATS.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> None of it stings, given that it was so long ago.
> 
> Having to give away Marshall did seem pretty foolish at the time.



Given the team's current record, does it still seem foolish? It was long enough ago that it's tough to tell exactly what the impact was. It's purely subjective, but I think that the housecleaning and philosophical shift that Pax has implemented is a big reason for the higher level of play in the last couple/few seasons.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Given the team's current record, does it still seem foolish?


Yes. Rose could have been dumped off without also dumping Marshall. What was the rush? Why not TT or EROB him?
We saw that contract move a couple times after the Bulls trade.




> It's purely subjective, but I think that the housecleaning and philosophical shift that Pax has implemented is a big reason for the higher level of play in the last couple/few seasons.


I think 3 lotto picks, the Ben Wallace coup and the "found money" have more to do with it.

The diving for loose balls, hunker down on D, military stuff is a nice message, but there is more than one way to win in the NBA. We'll see another version tomorrow night at the UC (a team that had no problem with TT playing for them last season).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think 3 lotto picks, the Ben Wallace coup and the "found money" have more to do with it.



I don't know that Tyrus Thomas has much to do with it to this point.

I agree that Paxson has drafted exceedingly well and signed the best free agent available this offseason.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Does this bother you? I don't really care whether Paxson talks up the team. I care how the team plays.


It bother K4E a lot. In fact every single thing Paxon does bothers him a lot regardless of how well team play. I really don't see any other reason why he kept talking about Paxon's guaranteeing the playoff in that particular year as negative example. I really don't get it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes. Rose could have been dumped off without also dumping Marshall. What was the rush? Why not TT or EROB him?


We only took TT on because he was an expiring deal. I doubt anyone offered more than a punch in the face for ERob in trade, or for TT for that matter. And as jnrjr said, neither of those guys were supposed to be a team leader.



> We saw that contract move a couple times after the Bulls trade.


For less and less in return each time.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

I wonder this sometime:Kruase might have been right if jay-will never got hurt because i could be wrong but didn't kruase draft j-will.Now he did have a less then stellar rookie season,but that was IMO due to the trangle offense he hated so much and also that he was a rookie,even baron davis struggled his rookie year.

Still if jwill never got hurt just imagine where would be by now.Because Jay-Will getting hurt set us back like a mother,but if he TC,EC,and jalen rose where still together that 03 season thing's would be greatly diffent now. 

So think for a sec,kruase tec didn't fail or do that bad,it was just bad luck that did him In.I think u can also throw in the fact that TC got hurt for a long time his i think rookie year or 2nd year.That i think studded his developement because before he got hurt he display a nice offense touch,after he was never the same,even till this day IMO.


Also throw in Yes i'm saying it Marcus Fizer.He too had just found a nice role with us providing offense off the bench.Then he tore his ACL and he too was bascially finished like J-will.


O yeah J-Crawford got hurt to his 2nd year and miss 90% of the season that hurt him with us IMO.


I mean krause was wrong for trading brand,but thier was so many good talent we had,but just couldn't stay heathy long enough to develope them in our system.Or really have summer's to improve while Krause was here.They where mostly all just spending summer rehabing.

With pax we could be saying some of the same negative things,about the player's he has brought in,but his player's have been very heathy (beside's late in the 04 season),non the less most of his player's have had full summer to improve,not recover(beside's Deng).Could u say that for most of Kruases young player's?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Drafting JW has almost nothing to do with whether Kraus was right or wrong. On that draft, the entire basketball world regarded it as two picks draft (Yao and JW). Yao was already gone when Krause picked JW.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We only took TT on because he was an expiring deal. I doubt anyone offered more than a punch in the face for ERob in trade, or for TT for that matter. And as jnrjr said, neither of those guys were supposed to be a team leader.


Right, but this does not address the post you were quoting.

At that point, it was clear that Rose was not going to be the leader Paxson wanted (a hinrich like player). Why not TT or EROB him? What's the rush to trade him? Paxson was willing to give up Marshall ASAP in order to dump Jalen Rose but he was not willing to give up Marshall to get Dwayne Wade. 

At the Bulls Tip-Off Lunch last season, TT was one of 4 players that were allowed to speak to the crowd and was introduced as a player that would be one of the "veteran leaders" of the team. It was not until he got into his tiff with Skiles that all the bad blood started. Point being, he was more than an expiring deal. He's a talented NBA-starter level player that Paxson was hoping to get some production from. The Exp Deal was the huge part of it, no doubt, but TT was not TTed from the get-go. Its like calling PJ Brown an expiring deal from the organization's perspective. They made PJ a team captain and put his picture on a ticket, so the org seemingly wanted more than just that exp contract out of him. 






> For less and less in return each time.


The aging, average AD and one of the most wretched contracts in the NBA (JYD)? That's a pretty bad deal.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> It bother K4E a lot.


Please, don't put words in my mouth.



> I really don't get it.


http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4345596&postcount=141


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Please, don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4345596&postcount=141


Good day.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Yeah, that sounds like what Paxson would have said. Kinda hard to imagine that he woulda said anything other than that.


Thats right. That is the type of thing he would have said and it is in fact what he said. 

I'll certainly concede that Paxson placed a lofty goal on the team with significant pressure to achieve it - make the playoffs, no excuses. I seem to recall literally dozens of similar quotes leading up to that season.

But never, ever did he guarantee a playoff berth. As far as I'm concerned, it just didn't happen. If it did happen, I want to read the quote myself. If it came in the form of a letter to season ticket holders, I want someone who received the letter to post it. 

Why? Some people are stupid. On accident. And some people take liberties with the truth. On purpose. 

I can't even begin to count how many times the fans and press have taken quotes by athletes/coaches/GMs that clearly state one thing, but are described as stating another. And sadly, the description becomes the reality and the reality becomes forgotten. 

There is a very recent example of this, in the NBA no less. Some of you may recall that it was reported earlier this year that Dwight Howard had "guaranteed" that the Magic would win the NBA Championship. Of course, he said no such thing. 



> Magic Champs? *Howard Says 2007 Title Will Go Through Orlando*
> 
> Christopher Cornell - All Headline News Staff Writer
> 
> ...


See how that happens? To fans and writers alike? 

Until someone proves to me that John Paxson guaranteed a playoff berth prior to the 2003-2004 - something that couldn't possibly be more inconsistent with his personality if it tried - then I consider it an urban legend unworthy of credit. 

I'm not saying that anyone is "lying" about it. I'm saying that people often read what they want to read and then fiction becomes truth and takes on a life of its own. It happens all the time in all different types of circumstances.

This isn't "ATS" (which its laughable to me that the source of a statement shouldn't be analyzed along with the statement itself), its specificity. And it applies to posters and writers alike, including McGraw. (By the way, "the promise of a playoff berth" doesn't mean McGraw is saying that a playoff berth was, in fact, promised. Its a figure of speech regarding optimism - "the promise of a new tomorrow" etc.)

If I can see the words Paxson used in making this so-called guarantee, and those words actually do constitute a guarantee, then I'll retract all of this and apologize. Until then, its hogwash as far as I'm concerned. 

And probably more importantly, its irrelevent to the current state of the team in any event. To the extent that Paxson did guarantee playoffs (its possible, just extremely unlikely), he promptly and humbly recognized his folly and started blowing up the team much to the benefit of its then future - its now present. 

But since this supposed "guarantee" has been a talking point around here for years that has recently resurfaced, I thought I'd address it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I can't believe we are still talking about Jalen Rose. 



> Yes. Rose could have been dumped off without also dumping Marshall. What was the rush?


It was evidently believed that he was polluting the minds of the young players on the team and his presence was counter-productive to the mindset and approach Paxson wanted to implement. 



> Why not TT or EROB him?


Because despite a banishment and buyout his contract would still have counted against our cap situation to this day and we never would have been able to sign Ben Wallace as a result. 



> We saw that contract move a couple times after the Bulls trade.


Yes, we did. We saw it move for less value and, in fact, with pretty severe penalties attached for absolutely nothing in return. 

He was traded by Toronto to New York for an Antonio Davis that was no longer physically capable of playing basketball (very much unlike the AD the Bulls received for Rose). And despite the poor return, Toronto had to INCLUDE a first round draft pick to get New York to take him off of their hands. 

Then the Knicks had to buy him out and cut him loose receiving no value in return despite the fact that he is a massive expiring contract at the end of the season. 



> I think 3 lotto picks, the Ben Wallace coup and the "found money" have more to do with it.


Damn right. Paxson's drafts, free agent acquisitions, and trades are the reason for the current team. 



> The diving for loose balls, hunker down on D, military stuff is a nice message, but there is more than one way to win in the NBA. We'll see another version tomorrow night at the UC (a team that had no problem with TT playing for them last season).


Absolutely right. More than one way to win. Paxson's way is one such way. I'm a little surprised to see you admit it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Absolutely right. More than one way to win. Paxson's way is one such way. I'm a little surprised to see you admit it.


Three solid lotto picks and Ben Wallace can win in the NBA, no doubt.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This isn't "ATS" (which its laughable to me that the source of a statement shouldn't be analyzed along with the statement itself), its specificity. And it applies to posters and writers alike, including McGraw. (By the way, "the promise of a playoff berth" doesn't mean McGraw is saying that a playoff berth was, in fact, promised. *Its a figure of speech regarding optimism - "the promise of a new tomorrow" etc.)*


No, its not. I was literally counting the seconds until you wrote this.  What about the ReamGM author? What's the reason to discount his interpretation of a playoff guarantee? Yet another idiot? So many idiots.

Given that all this happened 4 years ago, the news articles from this time are not easily accessible by me. Paxson likely never issued the unspinnable quote "The Bulls will make the playoffs... I guarantee it." But, he set the expectations. 

If Paxson is supposed to be a credible GM, his expectations are supposed to be considered legitimate. When he's passing out shirts saying "WE WILL WIN" an expecting playoffs of his team, they are supposed to deliver. That is certainly what he was selling the press and the fanbase. Perhaps it was just a way to sell tickets and generate buzz.... and raise the expectations to a level that would enable him to clean house, but he was saying the Bulls would make the playoffs. It wasn't just some pie-in-the-sky wish for a better tomorrow. This was a new GM saying that he had the personnel to make the playoffs that season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> All we can think about is the playoffs. If we don’t make them, it will be a disappointment for everybody in this organization and for the fans, too, because they deserve it. But we’ll get there. It’s no secret we want to get there and we aren’t going to sugar coat it. “No Excuses,” that’s our whole motto. We aren’t going to talk about being young anymore; we’re going to talk about making the playoffs. Our young guys are a year older and our vets trust our young guys more because they know we’re able to help them out. We’ve got Pip, Kendall Gill and other guys who are all experienced players that have been around and know how to win. They’ve been on winning teams and that, along with our young talent, is going to push us through. Not to mention that we’ve got a great coaching staff.
> 
> All of these things are what will help us make it to the playoffs and I can’t wait.



http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/crawford_journal_031013.html


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> No, its not. I was literally counting the seconds until you wrote this.  What about the ReamGM author? What's the reason to discount his interpretation of a playoff guarantee? Yet another idiot? So many idiots.


Yes. I just showed you an example from this season as to how this happens. It happens all the time. And when one person makes the willful or ignorant mistake, others pile on. You know this. 

That is no doubt why not one of them actually quotes Paxson making his so-called "guarantee" or "promise".



> Given that all this happened 4 years ago, the news articles from this time are not easily accessible by me.


If he said it, and it was printed, I would absolutely remember it. And so would the numerous other posters and die-hard fans in this thread also saying that don't remember him saying any such thing. 

Indeed, to my recollection you are the only poster that has ever claimed to have read this. Though others like DaBullz added your claim to their arsenal. 



> Paxson likely never issued the unspinnable quote "The Bulls will make the playoffs... I guarantee it."


Exactly. At least you now admit it. Now we can dispense with the urban legend of a "guarantee" and call it what it really was - a GM publicly and privately putting pressure on his team to make the playoffs, dispense with the excuse of youth, and start producing. 



> But, he set the expectations.


I don't think any of us disagree with you about that. I know I don't. 

I'm just glad he quickly realized his folly and had the stones to do a 180. There are a lot of GMs who wouldn't do that, and it has been their downfall.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms...d=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-7161386

Headline: Paxson won't rate Bulls early (yah right)



> CHICAGO _ The public playoff guarantees had been delivered. The T-shirts with "No Excuses" had been handed out.





> "I'll only be disappointed if this isn't a mentally tough group," Paxson said. *"We have pretty tough guys who can play...*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Exactly. At least you now admit it. Now we can dispense with the urban legend of a "guarantee" and call it what it really was - a GM publicly and privately putting pressure on his team to make the playoffs, dispense with the excuse of youth, and start producing.


The expectations of a competent GM are supposed to be banked on.

Paxson handed out shirts saying "WE WILL WIN." Winning teams make the playoffs. Sometimes .500 teams or losing teams make the playoffs.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/crawford_journal_031013.html


Those are Jamal Crawford's words. And even they don't contain a guarantee, just a goal.

I'm not disputing with you that the team, coach, and GM very publicly claimed that it was time to make the playoffs and that it was very much their goal to accomplish that task.

I don't think anyone disputes this.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

K4E, I think you are confused as to my position. I know what Paxson's publicly stated goal was and I remember a lot of promising talk before that season.

It was all wrong. Paxson realized it promptly and began decisively deconstructing the team.

I guess you look at this as something to criticize. I considered then, and more strongly believe now, that it is something to be commended.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> K4E, I think you are confused as to my position. I know what Paxson's publicly stated goal was and I remember a lot of promising talk before that season.


No, I don't misunderstand your position at all.

Paxson set the expectations at playoffs. If he's a competent GM, those expectations are considered to be how he thinks the team will perform.

When a GM comes up to you, looks you in the eye and hands out a shirt saying "WE WILL WIN," that's a playoff promise. No urban legend about it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Penguin,

It was 4 years ago, but I do remember him making the promise. I do remember people with season tickets saying theirs came with a letter promising playoffs.

Jamal Crawford didn't write the letter, he was parrotting the company line. Echoing the rah-rah kind of speeches made to the team members by management. And likely contractually obligated to do so.

However, I chalk it up as a rookie mistake and don't see the big deal about it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> However, I chalk it up as a rookie mistake and don't see the big deal about it.


Right, this is my stance about it as well.

Like I've said several times, if there still was a Fire Pax club, I would not be in it.

But he did promise playoffs before the 2003-2004 season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I don't misunderstand your position at all.
> 
> Paxson set the expectations at playoffs. If he's a competent GM, those expectations are considered to be how he thinks the team will perform.


I agree with you.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I don't misunderstand your position at all.
> 
> Paxson set the expectations at playoffs. If he's a competent GM, those expectations are considered to be how he thinks the team will perform.
> 
> When a GM comes up to you, looks you in the eye and hands out a shirt saying "WE WILL WIN," that's a playoff promise. No urban legend about it.


Again, my question to you always has been this.

Are you criticizing Paxon as a GM for making bold statement before the season (guarantee or promise, whatever anybody wants to call it)?

Or are you criticizing his bold statement was based on faulty assessment of the status of team at that time, hence criticizing Paxon's competence as GM for that?

Or are you criticizing him for making sudden change of plan only after one month into the season? (In other word, are you criticizing Paxon for realizing he made abosolute faulty assessment of the season before the season started? Do you want a GM who stand pat even after he realize his first mistake or make a move toward better tomorrow?)

Or are you criticizing Paxon for not giving that team chance to bounce back like the next year's team (your dream team of 47 wins)? (I couldn't criticize Paxon for dismantling that team at that particular time at all. After all it was his first move towards the 47 games win team that you are so fond of.)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Are you criticizing Paxon as a GM for making bold statement before the season (guarantee or promise, whatever anybody wants to call it)?


Not for making a bold statement. He's supposed to be competent, not some windbag making bold statements. If he hands out "WE WILL WIN" shirts, that should be interpreted as him thinking the team will win. He was very wrong (for the 1st month of the year).



> Or are you criticizing his bold statement was based on faulty assessment of the status of team at that time, hence criticizing Paxon's competence as GM for that?


Yes.



> Or are you criticizing him for making sudden change of plan only after one month into the season? (In other word, are you criticizing Paxon for realizing he made abosolute faulty assessment of the season before the season started? Do you want a GM who stand pat even after he realize his first mistake or make a move toward better tomorrow?)


Yes. And for the inconsistency of raising the expectations bar so high that season and for making it very low the following season (after ridding the team of the so called cancer and nabbing gordon, duhon, nocioni and deng).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Yep.

That T-shirt was a virtual guarantee of an 82-0 season.

He should have been shown the door at loss #1 (game 2).

****ing LIAR!!!

LIAR!!! LIAR!!! LIAR!!! :upset:

Let T-shirtgate begin!!!


:soapbox:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That T-shirt was a virtual guarantee of an 82-0 season.


No, it was a promise that he thought the team would be a winner. “WE WILL WIN” “NO EXCUSES”


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yep.
> 
> That T-shirt was a virtual guarantee of an 82-0 season.
> 
> ...


Regarding the T-Shirts, weren't they distributed to the players as a way of sending a positive message and to instill an atmosphere of accountability? 

Or were they sold at the UC and on Bulls.com?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Regarding the T-Shirts, weren't they distributed to the players as a way of sending a positive message and to instill an atmosphere of accountability?
> 
> Or were they sold at the UC and on Bulls.com?


They're on sale right next to the ben wallace fro-wig-plus-headband.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> of sending a positive message and to instill an atmosphere of accountability?


Not just sending a positive message.

The organization felt the team was going to win.

“WE WILL WIN” “NO EXCUSES”

These shirts were worn and talked about during all the preseason buzz time. 


Funny, the next season there was no “WE WILL WIN” “NO EXCUSES.” 

What was the reason for that?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

After participating in and reading this thread, really, the thing that comes to mind is:

"So what?"

Whether playoffs were "guaranteed" or merely "expected" or whatever else, it doesn't change any of that transpired. That team sucked. It got blown up. It still sucked. It then improved the next season. I don't see what t-shirts, letters to season ticketholders, or the interpretation of statements by Pax can change about that.

It's about building a winning team, right?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's about building a winning team, right?


Its about winning the NBA Championship.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, it was a promise that he thought the team would be a winner. “WE WILL WIN” “NO EXCUSES”


Yeah -- as in one game off from the best record in the (admittedly weak) Eastern Conference.

We ARE winning.

And nobody is making excuses.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its about winning the NBA Championship.


That's the goal, for sure.

For us, and the other 29 teams in the league.

One of the 30 teams will win it. 29 teams will fail this year.

We have more of a legitimate shot at winning it than any other time since 1998. Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

But we have built a winner, and a team that is poised to continue to get even better.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yeah -- as in one game off from the best record in the (admittedly weak) Eastern Conference.


Oh, those were referring to a team many, many years in the future.

Gotcha.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> We have more of a legitimate shot at winning it than any other time since 1998. Maybe we will, maybe we won't.


We'll see.

If we end up #3 in the east or worse, it will be a similar chance as the 47 win, curry,chandler,hinrich led squad.

Defeating the Cavs on Saturday without Hinrich was a promising signal. The game tonight will hopefully be another one.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't get it.

We ARE winning.

We are a game off pace from the best record in the East.

I expected at the beginning of the season for this team to compete and advance to at least the second round of the playoffs.

That remains my expectation.

Are you suggesting that anything short of a championship THIS SEASON = bust?

I think that is setting the bar a tad high.

I think we have a shot at that -- the best shot since 1998, but man, that is sure setting up the expectations for failure. I expect a second round appearance. I think that is reasonable for the mostly young team that is still gelling. Anything more than that will be welcome, but will be gravy. The team has had time enough to develop that anything less than a second round appearance will be a disappointment.

As for the 47 win etc crew -- the way this team seperates themselves from the pack in that regard is to get out of the first round. If all we do is match Eddy and the Cruisers from 2004, I WILL consider the season a flop.

We need to be better than that.

But hey, if all the ammo Pax haters have for bashing these days is a silly t-shirt...

I'll take that as an admission that something, somehow is going right.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, it was a promise that he thought the team would be a winner. “WE WILL WIN” “NO EXCUSES”


Or perhaps a motivational tactic aimed at the team.

Leaders do it all the time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> We ARE winning.


Right, but the issue being discussed in this thread was the 2003-2004 season and Paxson's playoff promise. 




> We are a game off pace from the best record in the East.


This thread was about the past. Its called "Was Krause Right" and evolved from there.

There are plenty of threads dedicated to the present state of the team. The Win Now vs Win Later thread should be the most interesting one on the site right now, although noone is really participating in it, except to nitpick semantics.




> Are you suggesting that anything short of a championship THIS SEASON = bust?
> 
> I think that is setting the bar a tad high.


I think moves should be made to maximize our chances to win the title this season if the goal is to "win the title now" which is what the Ben Wallace signing signals.

Straddling the bar between "win now" and "win later" is a risky proposition, IMO.





> As for the 47 win etc crew -- the way this team separates themselves from the pack in that regard is to get out of the first round. If all we do is match Eddy and the Cruisers from 2004, I WILL consider the season a flop.
> 
> We need to be better than that.


True, although that team was #3 in the East and didn't have Deng or Curry in the playoff series.

It would be like if the Bulls lost Deng and Wallace (or two other very key starting players to the team) before the playoffs this year and not taking that into account if the team lost their 1st round matchup.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its about winning the NBA Championship.


Thats the long-range goal yes, but not a reasonable one right now this season.

A winning, contending team (without goose eggs  ) is a reasonable goal for this team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Or perhaps a motivational tactic aimed at the team.


That's not what was sold to season ticket holders. Or the press. Or the fans before the season started.

Making it public made it the team's sales pitch. 




> Leaders do it all the time.


Why didn't he do it before the season when the Bulls actually turned out to be a good team? That year it was "Through thick and thin."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Thats the long-range goal yes, but not a reasonable one right now this season.
> 
> A winning, contending team (without goose eggs  ) is a reasonable goal for this team.


Let's hope Paxson can field a real contender (one that has a legit chance to win the NBA title, not some hazy long range goal) before Wallace starts to decline even more.

Or perhaps Tyrus, the Knicks pick and the current core 4 will be enough once Wallace becomes old man Wallace.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think moves should be made to maximize our chances to win the title this season if the goal is to "win the title now" which is what the Ben Wallace signing signals.


The Ben Wallace signing was a "get better" signal. Dumping youth like Luol and Tyrus, etc for a bigshot like Kevin Garnett would be a "win the title now" signal.

Your interpretations of the actions by the Bulls organization are very unique and interesting.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> The Ben Wallace signing was a "get better" signal. Dumping youth like Luol and Tyrus, etc for a bigshot like Kevin Garnett would be a "win the title now" signal.


Not true, IMO. The Bulls could have gone after players like Drew Gooden, Chris Wilcox and the lot. Those would have been "get incrementally better" moves as well. Younger guys that would be in their primes when players like Gordon, Deng, Tyrus, Thabo and the Knicks pick will be approaching theirs as well. 

Granted, Ben Wallace is better than those guys now, but two seasons from now?

Locking up that kind of money into Wallace hamstrings future flexibility for a player whose likely best season for the Bulls is going to be this season. That's more of a "win the title now" move.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Let's hope Paxson can field a real contender (one that has a legit chance to win the NBA title, not some hazy long range goal) before Wallace starts to decline even more.


I do not think the developmental goals of this team are hazy. In my opinion, they depend largely on Deng and Gordan continuing to develop as they have, and for Tyrus to develop quickly enough to gracefully ramp up and replace Wallace as he breaks down. I think the team hopes that he'll be the heir apparent to whatever interior scorer they acquire in the short term too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I do not think the developmental goals of this team are hazy. In my opinion, they depend largely on Deng and Gordan continuing to develop as they have, and for Tyrus to develop quickly enough to gracefully ramp up and replace Wallace as he breaks down. I think the team hopes that he'll be the heir apparent to whatever interior scorer they acquire in the short term too.


If the goal was to "win later" I'd rather have Gooden and Chandler.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Locking up that kind of money into Wallace hamstrings future flexibility for a player whose likely best season for the Bulls is going to be this season. That's a "win the title now" move.


I thought that one of the reasons Tyson was moved was to retain said flexibility.

Ok...does anyone know what Paxson and Skiles stated goals for Wallace are?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> If the goal was to "win later" I'd rather have Gooden and Chandler.



Win now and win (more) later. We can win the division and contend for the conference. In time we can win it all.

Lets examine the win the title thought. I will quote John Hollinger.



> Dallas is 24–3 since its 0–4 start; Phoenix is 20–3 since starting the year 1–5; and the Spurs are merely 12–3 in their past 15 games and have a dominant +9.5 points per game victory margin


We do not yet have a player with the stature of any of the three players that make these three teams run: Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitski, Tim Duncan.

We might in time. We do not right now. You can be a good or very good team while your players develop if you play great defense. We were there last year and we should be even better with Wallace. Then as his abilities tail off, you have other players ready to step in and fill the gaps. Returning to the theme of the thread, Tyson was dumped and Wallace will fill his shoes short term. Eddy was lost, and they will seek to fill his shoes part time too. But I think the hope is that Tyrus will be able to breakout one day in the interior the way Deng is now doing so on the wing. Then he'll replace both players fulltime as they move to part-time work.

It is my opinion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> We do not yet have a player with the stature of any of the three players that make these three teams run: Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitski, Tim Duncan.


Yah, I agree. KG could be this kind of player though.



Soulful Sides said:


> But I think the hope is that Tyrus will be able to breakout one day in the interior the way Deng is now doing so on the wing. Then he'll replace both players.
> 
> It is my opinion.


Cool. It seems like its a "win later" plan then, from your perspective.

I agree that the Bulls best chances to win the title, as the team is currently constructed, lie in the future. That being said, I think we'd be better off with Chandler and Gooden at cheaper individual prices than Wallace, if "win later" when Deng and Tyrus are older is the ultimate goal.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I agree. KG could be this kind of player though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the weakness of the East supplies an opportunity to do some things we could not otherwise do--like win the division and contend for the conference. But if the East were anything like the West, I question whether or not the the team would have signed Wallace.

Thank you for the discussion. Very interesting.


----------

