# How long do you give Pax?



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

If the Bulls get bounced out of the first round again this season (if they make it first of all) how long do you give Pax before hes canned. Now I like what Pax and Skiles do for this team, you can complain about the acquisitions of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng, but man oh man has Pax done some of the dumbest moves before the season started. 

1. Eddy Curry situation.
2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.
3. Signed Ben Wallace to a monstrous untradeable contract and not getting the production thats been expected of him.
4. PJ Brown over JR Smith.
5. Drafted a 5 year project in Tyrus Thomas for a team that only has a 2-3 year window to win a championship. He Could have atleast drafted Brandon Roy which would have made Kirk Hinrich expendable and now we are hancuffed with Hinrich's contract as well.

Some GM's dont even get to have those many mistakes in multiple seasons of managing a team, but to have 5 big mistakes in one season thats pretty tough to swallow. I am pulling for Pax to get his stuff together as soon as possible, but if the guy cant pull off a trade this season to get us past that hump thats the first round of the Eastern Conference Playoffs (which is a joke of a conference), then I give him 1 more season to get us to the finals, anything short of that and hes good as gone. 

If Pax is gone you know that Skiles is not going to stick around, I would love to keep Skiles in Chicago but the only way to do that if Pax is let go is to give Skiles, Larry Bird type of power and as much as I like Skiles as a coach I dont really think I would trust him with drafting players and signing players.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I don't know. There aren't too many good GM available either out there.

Pax is actually really good at building a team. He's really good at picking out talents that complement one and another. His only bad luck is that he never had a franchise player to start with. Substitute Mchale with Pax, or Ainge with Pax. The Wolves or the Celtics would be a very good team.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> If the Bulls get bounced out of the first round again this season (if they make it first of all) how long do you give Pax before hes canned. Now I like what Pax and Skiles do for this team, you can complain about the acquisitions of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng, but man oh man has Pax done some of the dumbest moves before the season started.
> 
> 1. Eddy Curry situation.
> 2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.
> ...


Here we go again, everyone getting all dramatic about a lose.

1. Curry was traded almost two years ago. It was the right thing to do im sure most agree.

2. Ben Wallace is offensively challenged, to have two big men, whom a paid generously in the same front line, no matter how many rebounds or blocks we would have got from them, they simply would not be able to score baskets.

3. The J.R Smith debacle is a risk that Paxson took in terms of judgement on his character, and whether a player like that would have been able to earn his mintues to begin with. Put it this way, Smith was in a perfect situation in Denver to be GIVEN mintues, and have the green light to shoot whenever he felt like, but now A.I is there, watch his mintues stay down, and remain down for the rest of the season. 

4. Its too early to take a handle on Tyrus, but im sure he'll make more of an impact this year. There is nothing wrong with him learning from other players in his rookie year, from which the players infront of him are clearly better then him. Its just a matter of whether is up to the challenge to keep improving as a player.

5. Handcuffed to a contract? Welcome to the NBA. The NBA is full of long garenteed contracts. Deal with it, its not going to change. There are some good contracts, there are some bad contracts. You either pay to keep, or don't pay and lose for nothing. 

I don't see the point of stating things over and over and over again, espically the same things again and again. If you clearly don't like this team that much, and if Paxson and Skiles pains you so much, maybe you should switch to rooting for another team. You give him one more season to work it out? Please.

The Bulls arn't desperate for wins, or desperate to make money as a business either. What we're desperate for and learning towards is to be a championship team again. Reinsdorf is not going to fire Paxson for a very very long time, so i doubt your empty threat of ONE MORE YEAR is going to amount to anything. Maybe you should give yourself one more year, and then switch to another team to root for instead.

We're a contending team people, we're one of the top teams in the east, we're one of the most profitable teams in the league, we're still a young and relatively inexperienced team. Some of your standards and demands on teams, management and just basketball in general is so unrealistic. It is hard for any team to win a championship, if your a follower of the NBA. Its just not about constantly making changes after every lose, its about staying constant more than anything, and making consistent smart decisions and i think Paxson does a great job.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

In my opinion, only 3 of those 5 you listed were mistakes. Chandler, JR, and Ben Wallace were all mistakes. Trading Curry and drafting Thomas over Roy were the right moves without a doubt in my book. 

Chandler being moved is 100% inexcusable, and I never will get over it. JR being given away was retarded too. Big Ben, he had the right idea maybe, but it backfired...unfortunately he's exactly what I was afraid he'd be when I heard Pax was pursuing him. Over-rated, over-priced, and ineffective due to a combo of size and age.

He'll never be fired though, as long as the team stays as is. Most profitable team in the NBA, highest home game attendance, playoffs annually......


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

kulaz3000 said:


> Here we go again, everyone getting all dramatic about a lose.
> 
> 1. Curry was traded almost two years ago. It was the right thing to do im sure most agree.
> 
> ...


kulaz3000, I pretty much agree with everything you have stated here. The only part I disagree is everyone is entitled to their own opinion (at least the last time I checked) and so I don't think its nice to bash people who do not feel the same as you do. 

That's what makes us humans unique and interesting.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> In my opinion, only 3 of those 5 you listed were mistakes. Chandler, JR, and Ben Wallace were all mistakes. Trading Curry and drafting Thomas over Roy were the right moves without a doubt in my book.
> 
> Chandler being moved is 100% inexcusable, and I never will get over it. JR being given away was retarded too. Big Ben, he had the right idea maybe, but it backfired...unfortunately he's exactly what I was afraid he'd be when I heard Pax was pursuing him. Over-rated, over-priced, and ineffective due to a combo of size and age.
> 
> He'll never be fired though, as long as the team stays as is. Most profitable team in the NBA, highest home game attendance, playoffs annually......


DaBabyBullz, I don't think any of Pax's moves were mistakes. I'm sure that if Pax can do all these moves again, he would still do the same thing.

Chandler has a big, long unworthy contract (hard to keep all our "core" players) and having Tyson and Big Ben both playing offense would be hard to watch (such as Hack-a-Ben or Hack-a-Chandler). Also, I don't think anyone thought that Chandler would do this well (hell, he had five years in Chicago to show what he is doing in New Orleans) and there are reasons why he has better stats.

1. Chandler is getting more minutes than any time in his career (as a result stats would obviously improve).

2. Injuries. The whole NOK team is getting hit by the injury bug (Paul, Peja, David West, Bobby Jackson, and as a result someone has to perform out on the court and Chandler is the one).

3. New Orleans also doesn't have many good rebounders on the team and so Chandler get's a majority of them. (Chandler still fouls too much, though).

I'm not saying Chandler has not improved, I am just giving some reasons as to his improvement from last season. Read my first or second thread as to why Chandler is/was expendable this season.

J.R. meanwhile wouldn't get many minutes on this team anyways because he doesn't play hard in practice (admitted he doesn't like to wake up early to practice), bad/unwilling to defend anyone(would not make Skiles happy) and all Smith does is shoot and dunk and we all know Skiles wants the team to be somewhat balanced on offense instead of one player jacking all the shot's up.

Also, I don't think anyone would've predicted J.R. would do this well this season and we know what kind of character J.R. is (evidence to how he acted during the Knicks brawl). We all know that Pax and Skiles wants NBA players that work hard, and fits the Bulls system (J.R. would have never fit in here, just like Tim Thomas).

Ben Wallace is not overrated nor ineffective. He is a great help-team defender and if you watch him play on defense, his eyes are always following to whomever has the ball while still guarding his man. Big Ben is also an underrated passer, good blocker,steals for a big man. 

People complain that he does not get certain defensive rebounds but that is because (not sure if you noticed this) he is getting pushed from behind(should be a loose-ball foul) or getting bumped while trying to get the rebound. 

Also, on bulls.com Nocioni was interviewed recently and says that Big Ben has not been able to play like Big Ben this season because he has had back and neck problems.

While he is over-paid, we would not have been able to sign him if we didn't do so. He would've resigned with Detroit (at least with Big Ben in Chicago, Detroit got worse compared to last season) and they would probably be near 64 wins again this season and the Bulls would be a mediocre team at best.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> If the Bulls get bounced out of the first round again this season (if they make it first of all) how long do you give Pax before hes canned. Now I like what Pax and Skiles do for this team, you can complain about the acquisitions of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng, but man oh man has Pax done some of the dumbest moves before the season started.
> 
> 1. Eddy Curry situation.
> 2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.
> ...



Pax isn't going anywhere even if the Bulls are eliminated in the first round. I seem to recall Reinsdorf saying something to the effect that Pax is his guy for as long as he (Reinsdorf) is managing partner.

Having said that I generally agree with your assessment. And this has nothing to do with the Bulls losing last night. Pax has a vision of what kind of team he wants and is myopic in his judgment of players as a result. One example you didn't mention was the signing of a broken-down Pippen when he could have used that money to get a a younger, healthier, more valuable player in FA (e.g. Posey). He just had to have Pippen even though he was aware of his severe leg problems because he thought Pip could teach the youngins the "right way to play." 

The Tyrus Thomas drafting was another example. Pax was intent on getting an athletic player and overlooked Thomas's glaring deficiencies in basic ball skills. I can go on but it really doesn't matter. The majority of people on this board are died in the wool "homers' and will defend Pax to the day the next owner fires him. They will excuse his every blunder and rationalize even the most blatant screw-up. The biggest, of course, was his bogus demand that Curry get a DNA test when every cardiolgist who ever looked at him, but one, said it was unnecessary. I knew Pax, and us fans, would pay the price for that bullcrap excuse to get rid of a guy he didn't want.

Bulls fans are ecstatic about this team. They can't seem to fathom that it is actually a pretty average team that looks good in a conference that is at its low point in NBA history.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

gotta love those armchair GM's; but it begs the question; how many NBA titles are they responsible for.

it's very easy to look at moves made in a vacuum and say; "that was the wrong move" however, having a "vision" is the FIRST step toward reaching a goal. if fans don't see the vision, or agree with it that's fine. their butts aren't the one on the line. but to recant moves like keeping JR Smith, or moving 5 year duds like curry and chandler don't seem like such horrific moves when judged against what those players are doing for the teams they currently are employed by.

further, kirk's contract handcuffed the bulls? that's some bull if i've ever read it. ben's production down? quite possibly, but he's been steady if unspectacular and at the LEAST as good if not better than chandler would have been. roy wouldn't have gotten the minutes everyone seems to be salivating over him about now, even if he is a decent player. thomas will be fine. the only thing the fans will retort when that happens is "boy, tyrus really developed into a star; i guess i was wrong".

yea, the bull is an average team at this point, but it's a work in progress. i'd have to ask; do any of the current fan base here recall it took the GOAT of all time 7 years to win a championship WITH another HOF by his side? but paxson should only have a little over 3-4 to make his mark?

gotta love the fans.....


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> Also, on bulls.com Nocioni was interviewed recently and says that Big Ben has not been able to play like Big Ben this season because he has had back and neck problems.


That's what happens to undersized, underskilled hustle players when they hit the wrong side of 30.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:



> gotta love those armchair GM's; but it begs the question; how many NBA titles are they responsible for.


As many as John Paxson as GM! :rofl:

Seriously, I agree that it's pretty silly to talk about firing Pax at this point, but this whole proactive bashing of anyone who might criticize him, and general fawning over him - he's never made a mistake, he shouldn't be expected to win so soon, his car had a flat tire, he didn't have enough money for cab fare, his tux didn't come back from the cleaners, there was an earthquake, a terrible flood!, *I SWEAR TO GOD IT WASN'T PAX'S FAULT!!!!!*


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> 1. Eddy Curry situation.
> 2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.
> 3. Signed Ben Wallace to a monstrous untradeable contract and not getting the production thats been expected of him.
> 4. PJ Brown over JR Smith.
> 5. Drafted a 5 year project in Tyrus Thomas for a team that only has a 2-3 year window to win a championship. He Could have atleast drafted Brandon Roy which would have made Kirk Hinrich expendable and now we are hancuffed with Hinrich's contract as well.


Yes, probably all of these are (or will be proven as) mistakes. Funny thing is that it's a chain of events, none of that would have happened if not for the mishandled Curry situation and Paxson's unwillingness to admit his own mistakes.
People like that slip, fall down on their face, then fearing to appear stupid they pretend that was intentional as if they only wanted to take a closer look at the ground, then start digging it to prove they had a reason to be looking at it, and in the end dig out a hole too deep to get out of. All instead of just getting up and walking away.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> but man oh man has Pax done some of the dumbest moves before the season started.
> 
> 1. Eddy Curry situation.
> 2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.
> ...


1. We won the Eddy Curry trade. Dumbest move? Maybe if you are an Eddy Curry fan. For Bulls fans we won that trade hands down.
2. Ben Wallace is better than Tyson Chandler. Dumbest move? Maybe if you are an Tyson Chandler fan. For Bulls fans we won that trade hands down.
3. Why are we looking to trade Ben Wallace? He is one of our best players and our record has been better than it has been in a long time. Our team is greatly improved over any years with the three C's.
4. PJ Brown plays C and PF. JR Smith plays SG. Not sure your point here. Could JR Smith start at C for us? Hauk up some threes and play no D.
5. Handcuffed with Hinrich? Isn't he our starting PG?

All these points sound like personal issues you have with individual players Curry/Chandler v. Hinrich/Wallace. Makes no sense. I guess if Paxson makes "some of the dumbest moves" posters are here are allowed to make some of the "dumbest" posts.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm not going to evaluate Pax until we're at least 3-4 seasons beyond the great consolidation trade, and I suspect that the optimal time to execute the great consolidation trade will be in the neighborhood of 2012-2013.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The only glaring mistake John Paxson has made in his whole life was that horrible mustache he sported early on.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Okay once again

1.The Eddy Curry trade wasn't and isn't a bad deal. Curry still doesn't play defense or rebound (two things the Bulls pride themselves on) and we received Tyrus Thomas and another potential top 10 pick for Curry. In my mind, Tyrus Thomas + Al Horford > Eddy Curry. Let's not forget that not paying Curry allowed us to sign Ben Wallace who is still one of the best rebounders/shot blockers in the NBA.

2.Right now, if you had to place a bet on Tyson Chandler averaging 10/10 over the course of the next 5 seasons would you do it? I wouldn't. Like some others have said, Chandler and Wallace were redundant. Here is another thing: Chandler couldn't catch or pass the ball out of the post, two things Wallace is perfectly fine at. Watch the Bulls last year. When that ball went into the post, it was either a turnover or a missed shot. 

3.See points 1 and 2.

4.First off P.J. Brown gives us an expiring contract that allows us to enter discussions about the Gasols and Garnetts of the world. Second, and I've said this multiple times, J.R. Smith is a one year guy. Remember Flip Murray's great year. Stephen Jackson's pre-brawl year. Willie Green's good year. Smith is 6'6'' and can shoot the ball pretty well. He should have a good season here and there. Problem is, he can't play defense, can't take the ball to the hoop, can't pass, so if his shot isn't dropping, he's a liability on the floor. I won't be suprised if J.R. Smith ends up hopping teams and plays himself out of many coaches' rotations. 

5.I don't think Tyrus is a 5-year project. He already looks like a better rebounder and better defender than Curry. And definitely a better passer and scorer than Chandler. Skiles is keeping out because he doesn't quite grasp the subtlties of the NBA game yet. He's 2 years away from being a major player. Not 5.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

In direct answer to the original question, I figure Pax to have a long tenure as GM of the Bulls.

As for all this mistake stuff, sometimes decisions are bad, or even stupid at the time they are made. These are usually caused by lack of research/preparation or a faulty thought process. Then there are sound decisions that turn out to look bad over time. 

All but the easiest decisions have some risk of turning out bad. Whether these decisions are "bad decisions" or "good decisions gone bad," depends on how you define it. Was drafting Jay Williams a bad decision? 

Put within the context of the talent mix of the team, chemistry issues ("jib") and financial constraints (we don't know exactly what these are, but we know they're there), I can't think of any of Paxson's decisions that were clearly unsound.

Paxson took over a once-proud franchise that had become a laughingstock. The fan base that had been built up by the dynasty was eroding. In his relatively short tenure, he's brought the franchise back to health. His team plays good and entertaining basketball. Reinsdorf and his backers are once again proud of their expensive toy.

No, I wouldn't blow up those going away party balloons for Paxson just yet.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> gotta love those armchair GM's; but it begs the question; how many NBA titles are they responsible for.
> 
> it's very easy to look at moves made in a vacuum and say; "that was the wrong move" however, having a "vision" is the FIRST step toward reaching a goal. if fans don't see the vision, or agree with it that's fine. their butts aren't the one on the line. but to recant moves like keeping JR Smith, or moving 5 year duds like curry and chandler don't seem like such horrific moves when judged against what those players are doing for the teams they currently are employed by.
> 
> ...


I wonder how many of the Paxson haters are also Cubs fans. :thinking2: Next year is the year...


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

While I do not agree with all of his decisions (especially the lack of return in the TC trade), if the Bulls get on a roll he may be the "executive of the year" on some voters ballots. 

I think the chairman is very comfortable with Pax, JR typically does not promote change for the sake of change at the top of his organizations. He seems to make judgements based on a body of success or lack thereof, not short cycles. Frankly, I wish more of us could operate this way, the "built to last" philosophy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

How long do I give Paxson?

I don't actually see a point in the future where I would cut it off. He's an excellent general manager and we are fortunate as fans to have him running the team. But my opinion means nothing. 

How long does Reinsdorf give him? Frankly, I think Paxson is in the Joe Dumars level on the job security ladder. I think Reinsdorf will keep him around for a long, long, long time unless a personality clash developes or a smart team pays him more money to lure him away.

Think about how horrible the Bulls had to get, and for how many years, before Krause "resigned".

If the Bulls fail to get out of the first round the next couple of years, its going to be Skiles' head on the chopping block, not Paxson's. Thats just how it works.


----------



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

If anyone gets a chance to watch JR Smith play basketball, you won't question his skill level but you will question his thought process. In last night's game against Portland, Smith looked like an absolute idiot hucking up bad shot after bad shot, playing no defense and fouling at the most inopportune times. JR Smith is a prime example of what is wrong with drafting atheletes and not drafting basketball players.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> \The majority of people on this board are died in the wool "homers' and will defend Pax to the day the next owner fires him. They will excuse his every blunder and rationalize even the most blatant screw-up.


This is as inaccurate an assessment of the nature of this board as I have ever seen and truly underestimates the quality of the posters and the nuances of their views on this board.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is as inaccurate an assessment of the nature of this board as I have ever seen and truly underestimates the quality of the posters and the nuances of their views on this board.


That's your opinion pal. I saw the same pattern with Krause until the day he got pushed out. The fact that rationalizations are "nuanced" does not mean they still are not rationalizations. The majority of posters thought Krause was right in trading Brand for Chandler. They rationalized that (1) Brand didn't want to play for the Bulls anymore; (2)Brand was not worth a max contract; (3) the Bulls could never win a championship with Brand as their "star"; (4)Krause couldn't get along with Brand's agent; etc. etc. 

However, the key fact was glossed over, i.e. Brand was a consistent 20/10 performer and Chandler was just a high school athlete with a weak body and limited skills. In retrospect it seems like a stupid trade. However, if you stuck with the basic facts you would know it was a stupid trade before it was consummated.


----------



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

charlietyra said:


> That's your opinion pal. I saw the same pattern with Krause until the day he got pushed out. The fact that rationalizations are "nuanced" does not mean they still are not rationalizations. The majority of posters thought Krause was right in trading Brand for Chandler. They rationalized that (1) Brand didn't want to play for the Bulls anymore; (2)Brand was not worth a max contract; (3) the Bulls could never win a championship with Brand as their "star"; (4)Krause couldn't get along with Brand's agent; etc. etc.
> 
> However, the key fact was glossed over, i.e. Brand was a consistent 20/10 performer and Chandler was just a high school athlete with a weak body and limited skills. In retrospect it seems like a stupid trade. However, if you stuck with the basic facts you would know it was a stupid trade before it was consummated.



And for some of us, the draft day that Brand was traded was the minute "we" demanded Krause's firing. 

If you think this board is filled with posters that agree with one another, look for the Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry and JR Smith update threads. To group us all together will make both sides upset with you :biggrin: and in that we might all finally again on something.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> That's your opinion pal. I saw the same pattern with Krause until the day he got pushed out.


Yes, it is. This is still a message board, right?

I think the representation that there are two factions here, one that is honest and critical of Pax's moves, and another that is blindly loyal to him and the franchise with no ability to think rationally is pure and utter horse****.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> That's your opinion pal. I saw the same pattern with Krause until the day he got pushed out. The fact that rationalizations are "nuanced" does not mean they still are not rationalizations. The majority of posters thought Krause was right in trading Brand for Chandler. They rationalized that (1) Brand didn't want to play for the Bulls anymore; (2)Brand was not worth a max contract; (3) the Bulls could never win a championship with Brand as their "star"; (4)Krause couldn't get along with Brand's agent; etc. etc.
> 
> However, the key fact was glossed over, i.e. Brand was a consistent 20/10 performer and Chandler was just a high school athlete with a weak body and limited skills. In retrospect it seems like a stupid trade. However, if you stuck with the basic facts you would know it was a stupid trade before it was consummated.


I'm about as big a Paxson fan as they come, mainly because I have agreed with the moves he has made and the vision he seems to be following.

I hated the Brand for Chandler trade, although I virtually knew nothing about Chandler at the time. I was hoping that his Krause's vision panned out, and at least there was some logic behind it--tank with project HSers while acquiring top draft picks in hopes that one day you again have a dominant team.

Losing Curry stung, no doubt. However, if Paxson truly felt it was an ethical issue in allowing him to play with the club I don't fault him for following his values, even though they might not agree with my own. If he said he needed to pick between Chandler or Curry, I would have said Curry without a doubt at that time. Even though we got the #2 NYK pick, I don't view that trade as winning or losing. We got the most value that we could at the time. Selling low. We sold low with Chandler too, but I only viewed that as acceptable with the acquisition of Ben Wallace. I don't view having a $10million/year bench player as usually being too sound a move.

The last draft is actually the largest disagreement I had with Paxson in his player analysis. Up until this point, it seemed he and I were on similar wave lengths with our draft choices. Tyrus was #6 on my draft board, with Aldridge being #1. Noah backed out, and I only preferred Tyrus to Morrison or Roy mainly because of team needs. I like Tyrus, but nothing in his game has surprised me from what I saw in college. Of course, I don't get to see all the pre-draft workouts, interviews, and the like. I hope Tyrus has a more successful career, despite the fact that I disagreed with Paxson at the time.

The only real "blunder" I saw Paxson make was in the '03 draft when he revealed that Wade was his guy. I don't fault him for not making the trade that was offered as reported. I wouldn't have either. Would I have been wrong, sure. However, by revealing that Wade was his guy, I think it likely drove up the value needed to trade up.

I like to analyze moves as they happen. I am usually on par with Paxson at the time moves were made, which is why I like him. I don't go back and blindly defend him to the ends of the Earth. You can always find flaws in anything/anyone if you look hard enough. GMing is about being forward looking, and I like to take that stance when analyzing drafts or moves, not constantly harp on what we could have had. Eddy's 19ppg and JR Smith's 16ppg would likely have netted us an additional 35ppg to our existing offense? Not that simple.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> 1. Eddy Curry situation.


I agree this was mishandled. I thought it was an invasion of Eddy's privacy to insist on a DNA test. However, I am not so cynical that I believe the DNA issue was merely smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that Pax secretly wanted to jettison the guy for nothing in exchange. All things considered, I think the Bulls got a fair return for Eddy, although obviously TT's development and Mystery Player X from this year's draft will ultimately determine the issue.



thebizkit69u said:


> 2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.


Agreed. The swap for PJ as far as I can tell was an unnecessary salary dump. Did Chandler play like crap the year before? Sure. Would I have been open to trading him? Yes. However, PJ Brown at the time wasn't great value. I expected a lot more out of PJ this year, but he has sucked to high heaven. We lost this trade.



thebizkit69u said:


> 3. Signed Ben Wallace to a monstrous untradeable contract and not getting the production thats been expected of him.


I like my GMs to go out and sign the best available free agent. The cap space would have vanished into thin air if it wasn't used. I'll take the 4-time DPOY over nothing eight days a week.



thebizkit69u said:


> 4. PJ Brown over JR Smith.


I'm not really sure this is accurate. However, I don't think JR has a role on this team, and his role may end up being greatly diminished on Denver now that they have 2 big-time scorers and JR doesn't seem to know how to make good decisions and not chuck the ball all day long. Duhon's recent struggles would indicate that JR might have gotten some burn, but frankly, I'd be happy to give those minutes to Thabo.



thebizkit69u said:


> 5. Drafted a 5 year project in Tyrus Thomas for a team that only has a 2-3 year window to win a championship. He Could have atleast drafted Brandon Roy which would have made Kirk Hinrich expendable and now we are hancuffed with Hinrich's contract as well.


I don't project TT to be a five year project. I also disagree vehemently with the notion that this team only has a 2-3 year window. Ben Wallace is an important cog in the wheel, but not so important that our chances of having a championship squad are gone after him. 

Handcuffed with Hinrich? Did you watch the game yesterday? We're certainly not handcuffed with him. I think just about every team in the NBA would gladly take him off of our hands. Hinrich is a good player, a very solid defender, and a solid guard. I'm glad we have him.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> And for some of us, the draft day that Brand was traded was the minute "we" demanded Krause's firing.
> 
> If you think this board is filled with posters that agree with one another, look for the Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry and JR Smith update threads. To group us all together will make both sides upset with you :biggrin: and in that we might all finally again on something.



My point is that we are all Bulls fans. As Bulls fans we have an emotional attachment to the success of the team. I have noticed that, in general, the "majority" of posters on this board will support management's moves regardless of the actual merits of the trade, draft or other transaction. 

I am willing to bet that if Pax makes a trade for Gasol the "majority" of posters will say that it was a good deal REGARDLESS of what the Bulls had to give up to get him. Try this out empirically. Count the number of posters for and against the trade. I have done this in the past with other transactions and it works every time.


----------



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

charlietyra said:


> My point is that we are all Bulls fans. As Bulls fans we have an emotional attachment to the success of the team. I have noticed that, in general, the "majority" of posters on this board will support management's moves regardless of the actual merits of the trade, draft or other transaction.
> 
> I am willing to bet that if Pax makes a trade for Gasol the "majority" of posters will say that it was a good deal REGARDLESS of what the Bulls had to give up to get him. Try this out empirically. Count the number of posters for and against the trade. I have done this in the past with other transactions and it works every time.


If we trade Gordon or Deng, I can only imagine how long the Gordon, Deng update threads become. Not everyone is going to like a trade for Gasol, just for the sake of getting Gasol. 

I think for the most part we are homers, but each poster has different players and differing styles of play that appeal to them.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> If the Bulls get bounced out of the first round again this season (if they make it first of all) how long do you give Pax before hes canned.


The Bulls have a 5.5 game lead on the 9th seed and would be playing Toronto if the season ended today. Why is there a significant chance they'll miss the playoffs and a presumption they'll lose in the first round. Furthermore, why is there a belief that this team will struggle to emerge from the first round? Two years ago they were the 4th seed and lost to the 5th seed in six games. Last season they were the 7th seed and took the 2nd seed and ultimate champions to six games. What is the basis for this apparently widespread belief that the Bulls are a poor playoff team?



charlietyra said:


> The majority of people on this board are died in the wool "homers' and will defend Pax to the day the next owner fires him. They will excuse his every blunder and rationalize even the most blatant screw-up. The biggest, of course, was his bogus demand that Curry get a DNA test when every cardiolgist who ever looked at him, but one, said it was unnecessary. I knew Pax, and us fans, would pay the price for that bullcrap excuse to get rid of a guy he didn't want.
> 
> Bulls fans are ecstatic about this team. They can't seem to fathom that it is actually a pretty average team that looks good in a conference that is at its low point in NBA history.


Really? Whose posts are you reading? Do you have any examples. I'm not sure I've seen anyone refer to the Bulls as Championship contenders. Plenty have suggested the team could make the Finals because they agree with you and realize the East is a weak conference but no one suggsests the Bulls are on par with the big three out West. I love how Paxson turns a perennial laughingstock into a perennial playoff team with an extremely bright future in just a couple seasons and he should be fired because the team isn't ready to win a Championship yet. 



MikeDC said:


> As many as John Paxson as GM! :rofl:
> 
> Seriously, I agree that it's pretty silly to talk about firing Pax at this point, but this whole proactive bashing of anyone who might criticize him, and general fawning over him - he's never made a mistake, he shouldn't be expected to win so soon, his car had a flat tire, he didn't have enough money for cab fare, his tux didn't come back from the cleaners, there was an earthquake, a terrible flood!, *I SWEAR TO GOD IT WASN'T PAX'S FAULT!!!!!*


Well what is the suggested time frame for seriously contending for a Championship? The way I see it there are 27 teams in the league with at best a very slim chance of doing so this season. How long has Pax been on the job? Four years? If you asked me how soon a good GM turns a 30 win team into one of the three or five teams considered to have a significant chance at the title in a season I would probably say 7 or 8 seasons. Pax somehow gets no credit for nearly doubling the team's win total instead he gets blamed for taking more than a couple seasons to turn the team from a 45ish win team into a Championship type team. I think most would agree giving away J.R. was not the best course of action but there may not have been that many other good options. I disagree with dumping Chandler but it seems likely that financial constraints were the biggest factor there. Am I giving Pax the benefit of the doubt to some extent? Absolutely, but I think he deserves it as someone who has been successful and represents my team. 

Furthermore, every executive makes mistakes. You can make a good case that Billy Beane is the best executive in sports but even he makes moves that cause people to scratch their heads from time to time. Jerry West has a fantastic reputation but he traded away the 13th and 27th picks to draft Troy Bell and Dahntay Jones. Bulls fans hold Paxson to an unreasonable standard by refusing to let go of the mistakes he does make and protraying his moves in the worst light possible (e.g. emphasizing Curry's scoring while failing to mention his defense, rebounding, or the fact that he signed an uninsured contract that possibly no other team in the league would have taken on). A good way to gauge this is to look at how more objective people evaluate Paxson. Analysts rightfully gave Pax some crap for the J.R. move but absolutely no one capitalized on it as an indication of ineptitude and began to talk about Pax in the same class as maligned GMs like Billy Knight, Billy King, or Kevin McHale. Most still praise the assets the Bulls have accumulated and routinely make fun of Isiah for surrendering so much in the Curry trade. I guess you can claim these guys are hacks but they get paid good money for their insight and have the benefit of being less emotional and more objective when making evaluations.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> If we trade Gordon or Deng, I can only imagine how long the Gordon, Deng update threads become. Not everyone is going to like a trade for Gasol, just for the sake of getting Gasol.
> 
> I think for the most part we are homers, but each poster has different players and differing styles of play that appeal to them.



You are correct that there will be long threads with many people upset. But the bottom line will be that the "majority" of posters will believe that Pax had to do it for a number of reasons: e.g. (1) the Bulls could not get to the next level witout a big player next to Wallace; (2) they couldn't afford to sign Deng/Gordon to what they wanted; (3) the Bulls had to give something to get something, etc. etc.

The best example of this for me was the Curry deal. If you recall the threads were numerous and incredibly long- but also very well thought out in many respects. The medical information that came out of it was truly enlightening IMO. Probably the high point in reasoned discussion on this board. However, from a pure head count of posters involved the majority thought it was the right move. I thought, and still do, that Pax acted disgracefully in the whole affair even though the spin was that he was just concerned about Curry's welfare. Whether you agree with me or not, the majority of posters supported Paxson. 

I suspect the same dynamic should there be a Gasol deal. Long threads and a lot of emotion. However, as indicated before, I believe the majority will support management REGARDLESS of who the Bulls had to give up to get him.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

L.O.B said:


> If we trade Gordon or Deng, I can only imagine how long the Gordon, Deng update threads become. Not everyone is going to like a trade for Gasol, just for the sake of getting Gasol.
> 
> I think for the most part we are homers, but each poster has different players and differing styles of play that appeal to them.


I think you're right there. A lot of people, myself included, find that Deng and Gordon have more appeal and would rather keep them, and some would go on and on about the trade sucking. It'd be even worse than the Curry threads now IMO. A good example of how players and their styles appeal more to some than others....I always liked Chandler, since his rookie year...on the other hand, I never cared for Curry. So I think the Curry trade is good, especially if we get a stud in the coming draft and TT turns out to be good. On the other hand, the Chandler give-away is ridiculous. Of course they're not even comparisons because with the Curry trade we will most likely get 2 lottery picks, including the #2 overall. With the Chandler give-away, we got PJ :rant: :curse:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> You are correct that there will be long threads with many people upset. But the bottom line will be that the "majority" of posters will believe that Pax had to do it for a number of reasons: e.g. (1) the Bulls could not get to the next level witout a big player next to Wallace; (2) they couldn't afford to sign Deng/Gordon to what they wanted; (3) the Bulls had to give something to get something, etc. etc.
> 
> The best example of this for me was the Curry deal. If you recall the threads were numerous and incredibly long- but also very well thought out in many respects. The medical information that came out of it was truly enlightening IMO. Probably the high point in reasoned discussion on this board. However, from a pure head count of posters involved the majority thought it was the right move. I thought, and still do, that Pax acted disgracefully in the whole affair even though the spin was that he was just concerned about Curry's welfare. Whether you agree with me or not, the majority of posters supported Paxson.
> 
> I suspect the same dynamic should there be a Gasol deal. Long threads and a lot of emotion. However, as indicated before, I believe the majority will support management REGARDLESS of who the Bulls had to give up to get him.


Spot on, charlietyra. Every one of your posts.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I think you're right there. A lot of people, myself included, find that Deng and Gordon have more appeal and would rather keep them, and some would go on and on about the trade sucking. It'd be even worse than the Curry threads now IMO. A good example of how players and their styles appeal more to some than others....I always liked Chandler, since his rookie year...on the other hand, I never cared for Curry. So I think the Curry trade is good, especially if we get a stud in the coming draft and TT turns out to be good. On the other hand, the Chandler give-away is ridiculous. Of course they're not even comparisons because with the Curry trade we will most likely get 2 lottery picks, including the #2 overall. With the Chandler give-away, we got PJ :rant: :curse:


I don't think there'll be Deng or Gordon update threads (in the first place or) with the same reasons as for our other past players. For Crawford, Chandler, and Curry, we basically got squat and were told they sucked. So with those players (and others), it's of real interest to see if they really do suck (and they don't).

If Deng and/or Gordon were traded for Gasol, it'd be the first trade in the past 4 years where we got a piece of our (new) core in the deal. He's an all-star caliber player, not an expiring contract or project draft pick.

People often ask about why we don't have Elton Brand update threads... The reason is pretty obvious - nobody ever said he was traded because he sucks, and few people tout the company line that trading him for Chandler was a good move.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Number 3 was going to be a mistake either way, because there was a posse of Paxson critics ready to call Paxson and JR stingy if they didn't throw a bunch of money at Ben Wallace. Catch 22 I say.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> That's your opinion pal. I saw the same pattern with Krause until the day he got pushed out. The fact that rationalizations are "nuanced" does not mean they still are not rationalizations. The majority of posters thought Krause was right in trading Brand for Chandler.


This board didn't exist when Krause traded Brand. 

And for what its worth, I totally supported that trade and completely understood what Krause was trying to do. Obvsiouly, we now know it was a mistake in comparing one player vs. the other. 



> They rationalized that (1) Brand didn't want to play for the Bulls anymore; (2)Brand was not worth a max contract; (3) the Bulls could never win a championship with Brand as their "star"; (4)Krause couldn't get along with Brand's agent; etc. etc.


This is interesting. First, you are confusing rationalization with consideration. Second, you appear to think these aren't facts. Some of them are.

The link has long since disappeared into the depths of the internet, but I read an article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal about a year after that trade, and Elton Brand - his own words in a quote - said that he and Falk had informed the Bulls that he *would not re-sign with them when he became a free agent*. It amazes me how often this is overlooked and what little press it received. 

And Krause most definitely did not get along with Falk. Those things aren't rationalizations, they are simple facts that need to be considered as part of the equation.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think there'll be Deng or Gordon update threads (in the first place or) with the same reasons as for our other past players. For Crawford, Chandler, and Curry, we basically got squat and were told they sucked. So with those players (and others), it's of real interest to see if they really do suck (and they don't).
> 
> If Deng and/or Gordon were traded for Gasol, it'd be the first trade in the past 4 years where we got a piece of our (new) core in the deal. He's an all-star caliber player, not an expiring contract or project draft pick.
> 
> People often ask about why we don't have Elton Brand update threads... The reason is pretty obvious - nobody ever said he was traded because he sucks, and few people tout the company line that trading him for Chandler was a good move.


Fair enough. I hate Duke, so at the time I was hoping it was a good trade. 7'1" 18 year old kid who seemed fairly athletic, or a 6'8" Dukey who we sucked bad enough with to be a high lotto pick...hmmm. Personal bias included, it made the trade very acceptable to me lol. Of course, if Brand hadn't been a Dukey, I probably wouldn't have liked it. I think the deal with Krause was he wanted to dominate with 2 mammoths in the paint, and had a good idea (Robinson (Chandler)/Duncan (Curry)). It just didn't work....I think due in large part to inferior coaching.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> This board didn't exist when Krause traded Brand.
> 
> And for what its worth, I totally supported that trade and completely understood what Krause was trying to do. Obvsiouly, we now know it was a mistake in comparing one player vs. the other.
> 
> ...


That's interesting. I didn't know, or didn't remember, that Brand said he wasn't going to resign. In that case, good riddance, and getting Chandler was better than just letting the damn Dukey walk for nothing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> You are correct that there will be long threads with many people upset. But the bottom line will be that the "majority" of posters will believe that Pax had to do it for a number of reasons: e.g. (1) *the Bulls could not get to the next level witout a big player next to Wallace;* (2) they couldn't afford to sign Deng/Gordon to what they wanted; (3) the Bulls had to give something to get something, etc. etc.


The "majority" of posters already believe the two things I bolded. A lot of us WANT Paxson to get Gasol and don't believe giving up a core players is too much. 

So if that happens, and we then applaud the trade you'll say "See, look at the homers rationalizing it" despite the fact that many of us wanted it to happen from go. 



> The best example of this for me was the Curry deal. If you recall the threads were numerous and incredibly long- but also very well thought out in many respects. The medical information that came out of it was truly enlightening IMO. Probably the high point in reasoned discussion on this board. However, from a pure head count of posters involved the majority thought it was the right move. I thought, and still do, that Pax acted disgracefully in the whole affair even though the spin was that he was just concerned about Curry's welfare. Whether you agree with me or not, the majority of posters supported Paxson.


I think that is a remarkably inaccurate account of the feelings around here at that time. If by "majority" you mean 50.1%, then maybe. But this board was split up into lots of different opinions on that topic. 



> I suspect the same dynamic should there be a Gasol deal. Long threads and a lot of emotion. However, as indicated before, I believe the majority will support management REGARDLESS of who the Bulls had to give up to get him.


You really think we'll all be supporting the deal if we trade, say, Deng and Gordon and the Knicks' pick?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Spot on, charlietyra. Every one of your posts.


He's about as accurate as someone saying Kenyon Martin averaged 20/10/2.5 as a rookie.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This board didn't exist when Krause traded Brand.
> 
> And for what its worth, I totally supported that trade and completely understood what Krause was trying to do. Obvsiouly, we now know it was a mistake in comparing one player vs. the other.
> 
> ...


Just a few questions and comments to your post:

1. I am not aware of this board not being around then. If what you say is correct then it was another Bulls board that preceded this one.

2. Are you saying that Brand would have gone into unrestricted free agency without the opportunity for the Bulls to match an offer and resign him?

3. A lot of GMs don't get along with their player's agents. You still have to do business with them.

4. I recall clearly AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL that Brand specifically contacted the press to tell them that the rumor that he did not want to play for the Bulls was incorrect. Brand is a player of the highest integrity. Why would he lie about that?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> 2. Are you saying that Brand would have gone into unrestricted free agency without the opportunity for the Bulls to match an offer and resign him?


I don't know what he would have actually done. I'm just telling you that he said, after it was all over and behind him, that he and his agent had told the Bulls he would not re-sign. 



> 3. A lot of GMs don't get along with their player's agents. You still have to do business with them.


I agree. I'm just saying that the Falk/Krause relationship is a fact, not a rationalization. 



> 4. I recall clearly AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL that Brand specifically contacted the press to tell them that the rumor that he did not want to play for the Bulls was incorrect. Brand is a player of the highest integrity. Why would he lie about that?


I don't know why. To protect his "highest integrity" image, perhaps. I'm not dogging him for it. The Bulls sucked balls and Krause was flailing about like a fish out of water. I don't blame him for wanting out.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> If the Bulls get bounced out of the first round again this season (if they make it first of all) how long do you give Pax before hes canned. Now I like what Pax and Skiles do for this team, you can complain about the acquisitions of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng, but man oh man has Pax done some of the dumbest moves before the season started.
> 
> 1. Eddy Curry situation.
> 2. Gave up on Tyson Chandler.
> ...


Good question,i was asking the same question to myself the other day.How long is pax's leach.Because to me in a way it's his fault why we're struggling if not more his fault then any year because these are all player's he's brought in himself.I think thou at 1st all his moves seemed good,and at least set us up to get whatever we need if we needed,and i think we've gotten to that point now that we need to use what we have to get what we need.That is a post player,and we need to use our exp contract to get that player,so now it's up to pax's to do something and just like last season he's done nothing and i think will do nothing because he cann't.Now he make the excuse that team's ask for too much,but that BS in my book.If your a good GM or as smart as you think u are or others say u are you can find that player.Either over sea's in the Dleague or on the bench of a team that doesn't use that player.In short i see us staying pat and again losing in the 1st round again for the 3rd straight year,i'm sorry i do.If we don't i see us losing baddly in the 2nd round.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He's about as accurate as someone saying Kenyon Martin averaged 20/10/2.5 as a rookie.


More spot on than your claim that anyone said Martin averaged 20/10/2.5 as a rookie.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> More spot on than your claim that anyone said Martin averaged 20/10/2.5 as a rookie.


http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4431580&postcount=7

You are right. You actually said it was 20/10/2.5/1.5. 

My bad.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4431580&postcount=7
> 
> You are right. You actually said it was 20/10/2.5/1.5.
> 
> My bad.


I didn't say as a rookie.

I didn't say it was 20/10/2.5/1.5 either.

You can try to post words that I didn't say and attribute them to me, if you like, but you and I both know it's you being a bull****ter


----------



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

BTW we are a freekin game out of 1st and if the Bulls win the next 2 games, Skiles could be coaching the Eastern All Stars. Not to mention if they hold onto the pick in next year's deep draft, they could end up with Durant or Oden. 

The Bulls are in great shape, unless you need to win now.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I didn't say as a rookie.
> 
> I didn't say it was 20/10/2.5/1.5 either.
> 
> You can try to post words that I didn't say and attribute them to me, if you like, but you and I both know it's you being a bull****ter


Whatever man. I provided the link if anyone wants to look at it.

My point is that characterizing agreement with Paxson as widespread homerism instead of what it really is - actual agreement - degrades the input of many of the posters that actively participate in the discourse on this board. And its a degredation that you endorsed. 

And it isn't even an accurate degredation (hence the Martin reference), since I'm pretty sure every single poster in here has disagreed - indeed, vehemently disagreed - with things Paxson has done or feared he was about to do (like pre-draft talk). 

Perhaps there appears to be "majority" agreement with Paxson as a GM because people actually do agree with him more often than not. The notion that agreement constitutes ignorant homerism is a slap in the face to many of the regular contributors to this website.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Whatever man. I provided the link if anyone wants to look at it.
> 
> My point is that characterizing agreement with Paxson as widespread homerism instead of what it really is - actual agreement - degrades the input of many of the posters that actively participate in the discourse on this board. And its a degredation that you endorsed.
> 
> ...


Name a move Paxson has made that you haven't rationalized to now being a good move.

Let me get you started: did we "win" the Curry trade?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Name a move Paxson has made that you haven't rationalized to now being a good move.
> 
> Let me get you started: did we "win" the Curry trade?


Oh brother. Lets make it an Eddy Curry thread!!!

Its my fault for assisting in taking this thread off topic. If you want to have a discussion about this, send me a PM. No one else wants to read us bicker.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Whatever man. I provided the link if anyone wants to look at it.


I'll provide a link, too.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/martike01.html

2004, Martin scored 16.7, 9.5 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.5 steals, and 1.3 blocks.

My use of the word "roughly" in my post was deliberate.


----------



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

BTW, let it be known if Paxson trades Deng, Gordon and the pick for Pau Gasol, I am not only participating in Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and whoever is drafted with the pick update threads, I am starting them. 

So far the players traded by Paxson haven't been my guys but Deng and Gordon are certainly players that I admire and if we piss away a chance at Durant or Oden I am going to be fuming.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Name a move Paxson has made that you haven't rationalized to now being a good move.
> 
> Let me get you started: did we "win" the Curry trade?


I don't think anyone outside of Chicago except for Isiah himself has ever considered the Knicks the "winners" of the Curry trade.

That NY writers are writing blog entries titled _Maybe _Curry Trade Wasn't A Bulls Steal should tell you something.



> Isiah (NYC): Should I ditch Curry and Starbury?
> 
> John Hollinger: Good luck with that. The problem with all Isiah's deals is that he's stuck with these guys for better or for worse, because nobody will take on these ridiculous contracts.


http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?page=ChatArchiveHollinger



> Marc (NY): If the Knicks make the playoffs (not as big an "if" being 35 wins in the Atlantic may win the division) does it make the Eddy Curry trade seem more reasonable? He's been playing much better (granted my 8-year old sister grabs as many boards) and the draft pick to the Bulls won't be all that high.
> 
> John Hollinger: It would be pretty funny if the draft pick was 14th instead of 7th or 8th because the Knicks were a 34-win division champ. Still doesn't make Isiah any less idiotic for not protecting the draft picks.


http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=14101

You can argue about the way Pax handled Curry's health situation though I think the uninsured contract is pretty strong evidence that Pax was dilligent and not paranoid.

Questioning the trade itself strikes me as insanity. With the possible exception of the Joe Johnson deal I can't name a sign and trade in the history of the league that brought a bigger return.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

deleted


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Questioning the trade itself strikes me as insanity. With the possible exception of the Joe Johnson deal I can't name a sign and trade in the history of the league that brought a bigger return.


One could argue that Paxson got more for Eddy Curry in a market with 1 pursuer, than Philly got for AI with several teams trying to outbid one another.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

In fairness, because I'm not a huge fan of the Curry trade, it ought to be judged on what we got, not what we did with it.

Getting the #2 pick in the draft was a very good return, albeit somewhat unexpected to Pax, I think.

Of course, we also have to judge what he did with the pick, which is a seperate question. While I'm a big TT fan, I'm going to say that a big part of my judging him a great prospect was based on Pax's prior draft successes and the fact he clearly liked TT a lot. And honestly, that's not a very good rationale for liking the pick. 

So anyhoo, the return on the trade is one issue, and how the return was used is another. On the second count, a guy like Roy or Aldridge might have us feeling better about things.



> Questioning the trade itself strikes me as insanity. With the possible exception of the Joe Johnson deal I can't name a sign and trade in the history of the league that brought a bigger return


We got the #2 pick in a fairly weak draft, which is a nice return, but I wouldn't say it's exceptional or anything. We also gave up a somewhat contributing playing in AD for the right to pay $12M to Tim Thomas to sit at home. For fans who spend a fair amount of time talking about finances and veteran leadership, it ought not to be ignored that we incurred that cost which did nothing but 1) lost us at least a stop gap big man and team leader, 2) got us some negative pub. We took back a Sweetney, who's been, as far as I can tell, worthless for everything except generating a continuing series of fat jokes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> One could argue that Paxson got more for Eddy Curry in a market with 1 pursuer, than Philly got for AI with several teams trying to outbid one another.


That would suggest Pax deserves even less credit and was merely the beneficiary of circumstance.

Of course AI and Curry are entirely diferent markets, each with a different set of unique restrictions.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'll go on the record re: Gasol as well.

BG + Luol + pick = jnrjr79 leading angry mob with pitchforks and torches outside Paxson's house.
BG + Luol = jnrjr79 loses faith in Pax
BG + pick = jnrjr79 very upset with Pax
Luol + pick = jnrjr79 unsure
Luol = jnrjr79 pretty happy
Gasol acquired, BG + Luol retained = jnrjr79 ecstatic as all get-out

Basially, I wouldn't trade Gordon and I'd be hesitant on Luol. I'm fine with dealing the pick, but if it is with Luol as well I don't know how to feel on that one. If he pulled off a deal without shipping either of those guys out, I'd be thrilled.

So, anyway, for posterity, that's where I stand. Obviously all of those scenarios can include what we would generally refer to as "filler."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> That would suggest Pax deserves even less credit and was merely the beneficiary of circumstance.


I don't understand that at all. He had one potential trade partner, which lessens his ability to leverage the discussions. Under the circumstances, the return he got is remarkable. 

King, on the other hand, had several teams bidding for Iverson which he could use to play off of one another. 



> Of course AI and Curry are entirely diferent markets, each with a different set of unique restrictions.


This, I agree with. But there is one important common demoninator that cannot be overlooked - potential buyers knew that the selling team had decided to move the player no matter what due to a conflict with management.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But there is one important common demoninator that cannot be overlooked - potential buyers knew that the selling team had decided to move the player no matter what due to a conflict with management.


Spot on. Due to the complex medical issues,the subsequent decision to trade Curry was an organizational decision, not Paxson's alone (though it's fair to assume that he supported it). Paxson HAD TO TRADE CURRY. Whether you believe they should have felt that the had to trade Curry is beside the point...once the decision was made, Paxson was painted in a corner.

Under the circumstances, he sure coulda done a lot worse. It's hard for me to imagine him doing much better.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't understand that at all. He had one potential trade partner, which lessens his ability to leverage the discussions. Under the circumstances, the return he got is remarkable.


Suppose you have two choices.

Choice 1 gives you the choice of several potential partners to negotiate with. They are Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey.

Choice 2 gives you only one potential partner to negotiate with. He is Bozo the Clown.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Suppose you have two choices.
> 
> Choice 1 gives you the choice of several potential partners to negotiate with. They are Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey.
> 
> Choice 2 gives you only one potential partner to negotiate with. He is Bozo the Clown.


Point taken.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

transplant said:


> Spot on. Due to the complex medical issues,the subsequent decision to trade Curry was an organizational decision, not Paxson's alone (though it's fair to assume that he supported it). Paxson HAD TO TRADE CURRY. Whether you believe they should have felt that the had to trade Curry is beside the point...once the decision was made, Paxson was painted in a corner.
> 
> Under the circumstances, he sure coulda done a lot worse. It's hard for me to imagine him doing much better.



There is something about this reasoning that bothers me. To some degree all transactions are "organizational decisions." This just absolves Pax of all responsibility for getting the team in this situation. I never took a formal logic course but it strikes me that someone who participated in the decision, or perhaps even initiated the idea to move Curry, is then relieved of responsibility for the results because he "had to trade" him.

Moreover, whether they had to trade Curry is not "beside the point" in my opinion. Very much like the the Brand deal, I believe the Bulls made a strategic decision that they did not want to pay market price for somebody they didn't think was going to be a franchise player. As a result, they painted themselves into a corner because other teams knew the Bulls were desperate to move the player.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Suppose you have two choices.
> 
> Choice 1 gives you the choice of several potential partners to negotiate with. They are Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey.
> 
> Choice 2 gives you only one potential partner to negotiate with. He is Bozo the Clown.


Yea, but is it Paxs' fault that Bozo works for the Knicks now?

I understand Cookie and Whizzo the Wizard work for the T-Wolves and Sixers respectively. (Or the Warriors and the Celtics - I get these clowns confused sometimes!)


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> There is something about this reasoning that bothers me. To some degree all transactions are "organizational decisions." This just absolves Pax of all responsibility for getting the team in this situation. I never took a formal logic course but it strikes me that someone who participated in the decision, or perhaps even initiated the idea to move Curry, is then relieved of responsibility for the results because he "had to trade" him.


Did you miss the part where I said that that "it's fair to assume that Paxson supported it" (the decision that Curry had to be traded)? Paxson made the deal, and as far as fan reaction goes, he's the guy. However, in terms of "How long you give Pax?" the fact that it was an organization decision is EXTREMELY relevant.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> There is something about this reasoning that bothers me. To some degree all transactions are "organizational decisions." This just absolves Pax of all responsibility for getting the team in this situation.


Not true. GM's do some things because the owners tell them too. End of story. 

Though in the case of Eddy Curry, I believe that Paxson was on board with requiring the DNA test. 



> I never took a formal logic course but it strikes me that someone who participated in the decision, or perhaps even initiated the idea to move Curry, is then relieved of responsibility for the results because he "had to trade" him.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that transplant specifically noted that a separate criticism could be made that Paxson should not have agreed with the DNA requirement. 

Transplant is talking about the return in the trade. Not what prompted the trade. 



> Moreover, whether they had to trade Curry is not "beside the point" in my opinion.


It is beside the point to evaluating the return of the trade. It is not beside the point in evaluating whether he should have been traded at all.

These are two distinct things. 



> Very much like the the Brand deal, I believe the Bulls made a strategic decision that they did not want to pay market price for somebody they didn't think was going to be a franchise player. As a result, they painted themselves into a corner because other teams knew the Bulls were desperate to move the player.


This is rampant speculation and, in my opinion, one of the most illogical - yet often repeated - arguments I've ever heard in my life. 

If the Bulls didn't want to pay Eddy Curry they would have just traded him. Why on God's green earth would they publicly express a concern that he might *die* while playing basketball if their plan all along was to move him? If you want to trade a player, you want to maximize his value to potential buyers. You don't publicly express concerns that he might drop dead on the basketball court. 

"Hey Zeke, we think this guy might die while playing basketball. How about two lotto picks for him? Unprotected."


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Not true. GM's do some things because the owners tell them too. End of story.
> 
> Though in the case of Eddy Curry, I believe that Paxson was on board with requiring the DNA test.
> 
> ...


In my opinion, Pax initially made a big deal of Eddy's heart condition in order to lower his value in the upcoming salary negotiations. I think he was willing to keep Curry but only at a lowball price. When that didn't work the whole thing blew up in Paxson's face. It then became a Mexican stand-off between the two camps and Paxson blinked. That is how he painted himself in a corner.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I
> I don't project TT to be a five year project. I also disagree vehemently with the notion that this team only has a 2-3 year window. Ben Wallace is an important cog in the wheel, but not so important that our chances of having a championship squad are gone after him.


Do you think this team has a chance at winning the NBA title if they stay the same 3 years from now? The Bulls will not win a championship if they keep adding small pieces to a team that needs one more big piece. Ben Wallace at best just increases our chances of winning games slightly but hes not the type of player that will make you win games alone. If the Bulls dont make a move for a star either this season or next season then yeah this team will only have a 3 year windown to win the NBA title. 

Tyrus Thomas has absolutely no basic basketball skills, I just dont know how someone will become a complete player in less then 5 years. I think thats how long it took Chandler to accept what he is and now hes performing at a very valuable level.



jnrjr79 said:


> Handcuffed with Hinrich? Did you watch the game yesterday? We're certainly not handcuffed with him. I think just about every team in the NBA would gladly take him off of our hands. Hinrich is a good player, a very solid defender, and a solid guard. I'm glad we have him.


Ive seen him play not just yesterday but all season and all his career. Hes had more bad games this year than great ones.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> One could argue that Paxson got more for Eddy Curry in a market with 1 pursuer, than Philly got for AI with several teams trying to outbid one another.


Hahaha. Great point.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> In my opinion, Pax initially made a big deal of Eddy's heart condition in order to lower his value in the upcoming salary negotiations. I think he was willing to keep Curry but only at a lowball price. When that didn't work the whole thing blew up in Paxson's face. It then became a Mexican stand-off between the two camps and Paxson blinked. That is how he painted himself in a corner.


Interesting speculation. Is there any more support for this POV than a POV that says that Paxson wanted to re-sign Curry if he could be medically-approved to the satisfaction of team ownership?

Just wonderin'.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

charlietyra said:


> In my opinion, Pax initially made a big deal of Eddy's heart condition in order to lower his value in the upcoming salary negotiations. I think he was willing to keep Curry but only at a lowball price. When that didn't work the whole thing blew up in Paxson's face. It then became a Mexican stand-off between the two camps and Paxson blinked. That is how he painted himself in a corner.


Which, in effect, means that Paxson is a despicable human being attempting to crush a young man's earning power by deliberately and publicly falsifying concerns over a health issue to the point of noting the potential for death. 

This is the worst kind of speculation and it finds absolutely no support in fact. 

Why didn't he deviously invent something to publicly slander Tyson Chandler's marketability? Or Hinrich's? Maybe when Ben Gordon is up for an extension, Paxson will start publicly commenting on concerns over his proclivity for abusive conduct toward women. 

After all, thats the type of thing Paxson does. Right?

Question: If the DNA test was all a bluff to drive down Curry's value, then why didn't they just withdraw it citing other physician opinions when Curry and his agent went "all in"? Too prideful? It would have been very, very easy to do.

Its a ridiculous allegation in every imaginable way.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> We got the #2 pick in a fairly weak draft, which is a nice return, but I wouldn't say it's exceptional or anything. We also gave up a somewhat contributing playing in AD for the right to pay $12M to Tim Thomas to sit at home. For fans who spend a fair amount of time talking about finances and veteran leadership, it ought not to be ignored that we incurred that cost which did nothing but 1) lost us at least a stop gap big man and team leader, 2) got us some negative pub. We took back a Sweetney, who's been, as far as I can tell, worthless for everything except generating a continuing series of fat jokes.


Well the money ends up being a wash since if we didn't pay that money to Thomas we would have paid it to AD. The big question there is how much does AD's absence (and I suppose whatever headaches Thomas caused the team) effect the success of the deal? Personally, I'll say not very much. AD was not a particularly good player with the Bulls. I wouldn't say that his veteran leadership, hard play, size, and man defense weren't valuable to the team - they may have been incredibly valuable - but those are the types of qualities that should be reasonably easy to acquire via free agency or trade. Afterall, AD was never a key to the Rose deal, that was all about dumping Jalen's contract. I think you could fault Pax for failing to acquire another big body last year and letting his two best veteran leaders go without finding replacemts - he's lamented failing to resign Griff before - but in my opinion that doesn't take anything away from the deal.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Interesting speculation. Is there any more support for this POV than a POV that says that Paxson wanted to re-sign Curry if he could be medically-approved to the satisfaction of team ownership?
> 
> Just wonderin'.


I don't remember anything that said Reinsdorf stepped in and laid anything down either. I think pretty much all views on what the Bulls were thinking are equally unsupported.

Although I think the fact that they offered Curry a big deal contingent on passing the test is probably evidence against Charlie's view. On the other hand, it's quite possible that the Bulls simply offered that knowing it would never be accepted and did it to set the price needed to make a sign and trade work.

So I think to me, it's mostly speculation in either direction.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Which, in effect, means that Paxson is a despicable human being attempting to crush a young man's earning power by deliberately and publicly falsifying concerns over a health issue to the point of noting the potential for death.
> 
> This is the worst kind of speculation and it finds absolutely no support in fact.
> 
> ...



Steady son. While I agree with every word of your excellent post, I'm a little concerned about your blood pressure. Then again, penguins are pretty tough critters, so maybe you'll be OK.

In any case, well done lad.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> In my opinion, Pax initially made a big deal of Eddy's heart condition in order to lower his value in the upcoming salary negotiations. I think he was willing to keep Curry but only at a lowball price. When that didn't work the whole thing blew up in Paxson's face. It then became a Mexican stand-off between the two camps and Paxson blinked. That is how he painted himself in a corner.



Wow, now that is cynical. (Not impossible, mind you.)


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> On the other hand, it's quite possible that the Bulls simply offered that knowing it would never be accepted and did it to set the price needed to make a sign and trade work.
> 
> So I think to me, it's mostly speculation in either direction.


Mike DC, you told me earlier today that something I wrote was "beneath me" and you were right. I'm about to return the favor (but in a different way).

The idea that the Bulls offering a big contract to Curry contingent on him taking a medical test was a patently unreasonable, _purposely_ deal-breaking requirement is beneath you.

C'mon. You're better than that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you think this team has a chance at winning the NBA title if they stay the same 3 years from now? The Bulls will not win a championship if they keep adding small pieces to a team that needs one more big piece. Ben Wallace at best just increases our chances of winning games slightly but hes not the type of player that will make you win games alone. If the Bulls dont make a move for a star either this season or next season then yeah this team will only have a 3 year windown to win the NBA title.
> 
> Tyrus Thomas has absolutely no basic basketball skills, I just dont know how someone will become a complete player in less then 5 years. I think thats how long it took Chandler to accept what he is and now hes performing at a very valuable level.
> 
> ...



I disagree with your assessment on Tyrus. He already clearly has more "basketball skills" than Tyson ever has. He does not, however, have the same height.

As to whether this team "if they stay the same" can win in three years - that's irrelevant. Have you seen the turnover on this roster in the last few years? There's no reason to expect them not to add assets (and to trade current ones) in the interim.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I disagree with your assessment on Tyrus. He already clearly has more "basketball skills" than Tyson ever has. He does not, however, have the same height.
> 
> As to whether this team "if they stay the same" can win in three years - that's irrelevant. Have you seen the turnover on this roster in the last few years? There's no reason to expect them not to add assets (and to trade current ones) in the interim.


No, just no Chandler is a much better player then Thomas right now its not even close. Chandler has turned into an amazing rebounder and knows his role on offense, Tyrus doesnt even know what possition he is.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Which, in effect, means that Paxson is a despicable human being attempting to crush a young man's earning power by deliberately and publicly falsifying concerns over a health issue to the point of noting the potential for death.
> 
> This is the worst kind of speculation and it finds absolutely no support in fact.
> 
> ...



When $50-$60 million (or more)of the owners' money is at stake you would be surprised at what a GM will do. In fact, it is quite common in professional sports for a player's physical condition to be a key determinant in market value. The fact that it involved the heart instead of a knee is what made this situation more unusual than most. If you think this is not a tough business think again. 

By the way, Paxson is no angel. Remember what he did to Corie Blount? I also think he (and Skiles, probably) unfairly maligned Tim Thomas's reputation (and future earning power) by sending him home under a cloud.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

charlietyra said:


> By the way, Paxson is no angel. Remember what he did to Corie Blount? I also think he (and Skiles, probably) unfairly maligned Tim Thomas's reputation (and future earning power) by sending him home under a cloud.


You know, Tim Thomas ended up with a very nice contract from the Clippers, and as he's been over paid most of his career because George Karl is an idiot, worrying about Timmy's earning power is not needed. In fact, I've believed for a long time he should give Senator Kohl some of that salary back.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Getting back to the Brand trade, I couldn't find the Milwaukee newspaper article that (I think it was) Ron Cey referenced, but I did find these snippets from various newspapers (for what it's worth). (The emphasis is mine.)


Chicago Tribune
February 10, 2001
Author: Sam Smith

*"I know I can't put up with this forever--I don't want to be on a losing team my whole career,*" he [Brand] said. "*I know I'll be much happier as a guy on a winning team* who is just a solid player. If this team, in the next few years, doesn't improve, maybe things will be different.



Chicago Tribune
June 27, 2001
Author: SAM SMITH

*Brand's future is clearly an issue facing the Bulls*, and it appears agent David Falk may be running interference for Jordan's Wizards on it. *The implication is that if the Bulls don't trade Brand to the Wizards, he may well leave as a free agent, or at least refuse to sign an extension after next season*, raising questions about his future with the team and further damaging the Bulls' chances of attracting quality free agents.

Dealing Brand would signal another rebuilding, but perhaps a more exciting one. *The feeling among many around the league is Brand will not improve much beyond what he is.*



Chicago Tribune
June 28, 2001
Author: K.C. Johnson

Brand also said he had an opportunity to block the deal to the Clippers.

"[Agent] David Falk said, `Do you want me to block this?' I said no," Brand said. "I talked to [Clippers] Coach [Alvin] Gentry and he said he'd trade [for] me over any player in this draft. So that shows he has a lot of confidence in me. *I'm looking forward to moving on.*"



Chicago Tribune
June 28, 2001
Author: SAM SMITH

The Bulls' stunning moves to retool on the shoulders of two teenage 7-footers is a daring risk. But it also gives them a chance to develop a championship nucleus. *Brand is a wonderful player, but still 6-8. He was never going to become a dominant player in the NBA.* He'll be a good one for a decade.

Neither Curry nor Chandler may ever be. But if they reach their potential, the Bulls could become a great team again.

The Bulls also were uncertain about Brand's status; he can become a free agent in three years. *They worried that his agent, David Falk, who is also Michael Jordan's agent, would urge Brand to leave for Washington.* Jordan also had tried to get Brand, asking for Brand, Jamal Crawford and Jake Voskuhl for the No. 1 pick. But the Bulls believed that was too steep a price.



The Miami Herald
July 1, 2001
Author: BARRY JACKSON

How could Chicago trade Elton Brand, who averaged 20 points and 10 rebounds over his first two pro seasons? Three reasons:

* Krause believed Brand, dealt to the Clippers, was as good as he would get, while Chandler, the prep forward from Compton, Cal., could flourish into a better player long-term.

The 7-0 Chandler can run the floor, shoot with range, and play either forward position.

* Under a new set of rules that will limit plodding post players, the Bulls' offense would have been slow and awkward with 275-pound Brand sharing the paint with 285-pound Curry.

* Krause wanted to create minutes for second-year man Marcus Fizer at power forward, his natural position. Krause can play Chandler, Curry and Fizer together. A lineup of Curry, Brand and Fizer wasn't a good fit.

* Krause realized he had to gamble on potential stars in the draft because of his inability to lure free agents despite ample salary-cap space. The Bulls are unlikely to land Chris Webber, Allan Houston or any of the top free agents this summer.



Chicago Tribune
March 9, 2002
Author: K.C. Johnson

One of the theories behind general manager Jerry Krause's move was that Brand might peak as a player, whereas Chandler's potential is limitless. Brand averaged 20.1 points and 10 rebounds and shot 47.9 percent with the Bulls. He entered Friday as one of seven players averaging a double-double at 18.6 points and 11.7 rebounds. His 52.2 percent field-goal percentage is fifth in the NBA..

"It is somewhat vindication showing that I didn't top out," Brand said. "I still have a lot to work on, so I'm going to get better and better each year.

"Here I was just playing for pride. Now we have a legitimate playoff shot. It's fun."

Brand addressed another theory behind the trade: He wouldn't re-sign with the Bulls when his contract expired in two seasons, especially given the cool relationship between Krause and David Falk, Brand's agent.[/B]

*"That may have been a possibility, especially winning 15 games every year," Brand said. "That was tough."*



New York Times, The (NY)
April 26, 2006
Author: HOWARD BECK

He is, however, improving, even at age 27. Last summer, at the behest of Dunleavy, *Brand shed 18 pounds and extended the range on his jump shot.*

More chiseled around his shoulders than ever, *Brand added quickness without losing strength.* The result was his best statistical season -- 24.7 points (.527 shooting), 10 rebounds and 2.54 blocks a game. He is now as capable of scoring in the pick-and-roll as he is on the low block.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I wish the search function worked better. Charlie's position is not at all unsupportable (much less libelous) given the sequence of events.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Mike DC, you told me earlier today that something I wrote was "beneath me" and you were right. I'm about to return the favor (but in a different way).
> 
> The idea that the Bulls offering a big contract to Curry contingent on him taking a medical test was a patently unreasonable, _purposely_ deal-breaking requirement is beneath you.
> 
> C'mon. You're better than that.


Wait a second, nowhere did I saying anything about it being patently unreasonable.

I mean, it was perfectly reasonable for the Bulls to make the offer and to be their final offer. I also think they made the offer knowing with a fairly high degree of confidence it would be rejected, given what had transpired up to that point.

I don't see anything underhanded about that, I'm just pointing out that the offer might have been a tool to a different end that really re-signing him to big bucks.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Steady son. While I agree with every word of your excellent post, I'm a little concerned about your blood pressure. Then again, penguins are pretty tough critters, so maybe you'll be OK.
> 
> In any case, well done lad.


I wrote it with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Getting back to the Brand trade, I couldn't find the *Milwaukee newspaper article *that (I think it was) Ron Cey referenced, but I did find these snippets from various newspapers (for what it's worth). (The emphasis is mine.)


I remember what you're talking about. Wish I saved that one too. It basically confirmed that Brand wasn't going to re-sign with us once his contract was up. He couldn't take all the losing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Charlie's position is not at all unsupportable (much less libelous) given the sequence of events.


Yes it is.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

just to chime in a bit.

TC is better then TT right now,but like 1 of the poster's said it because he know's his role and is 1 of the league's best reb.Still though that's not why we traded for him to be the leagues best reb.We drafted him to be the next KG or Raheed Wallace he's neither he's not even marcus camby at this point he's just TC.Which isn't bad,but again that's not why we drafted him,but he is better then TT right now.2 or 3 year's from now TT will be the better player though.Because of his work eithic and natural talent and abilitys he posses.I think TT will be the star TC was surposed to be,but like TC,TT game will be more dominate on the def end rather so on the offensive end.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SALO said:


> I remember what you're talking about. Wish I saved that one too. It basically confirmed that Brand wasn't going to re-sign with us once his contract was up. He couldn't take all the losing.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers this. 

Back then I posted on realgm all the time, and there were lengthy discussions about it. And it would often be linked later for those who hadn't read it. But, over time, the link went bye-bye.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Doesn't everyone have free access to LexisNexis? 

<center>Copyright 2001 Journal Sentinel Inc. 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin)</center><center>
*July* 1, 2001 Sunday FINAL EDITION</center>
*SECTION:* SPORTS; Pg. 08C

*LENGTH:* 1318 words

*HEADLINE:* Bulls' project will take more time

*BYLINE:* TOM ENLUND of the Journal Sentinel staff

Money Quote



> Brand, who voluntarily drove to the Bulls' training center from his nearby home after the trade was announced to meet with reporters, admitted that he had pushed for the trade because the incessant losing was wearing on him.
> 
> "The Bulls probably thought that I wasn't going to re-sign with them next year," Brand said. "I was pressing them to trade me. The losing was getting tough to take.
> 
> ...


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

That being said, I don't think it's cut and dry. It's convenient to point to the article and stop right there, but there's a lot more to it.

First, the bulls still had time. Suppose they simply did the sensible thing, got a couple of solid players in free agency and the draft, and exercised Brand's option. They would have won more, and shown some direction.

If you heard Chris Bosh at this time last year, he probably sounded about the same. God knows what he was saying privately to the Raptors. 

Add to it the fact the Bulls could offer him significantly more money (again, just like Bosh), and I tend to think the Bulls could have told him to suck it up. Perhaps with Brand they would have picked besides Curry (who would be hard to fit with Brand), and gotten more immediate help (Jrich, RJeff, Battier, Murphy, Arenas, Boozer, Johnson? The list of guys we passed on in that draft is long and scary).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Good find, Mike. Thats a keeper.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes it is.


Paxson hit the airwaves and print reporters with a well-orchestrated Eddy Curry=Hank Gathers=Reggie Lewis onslaught (with no basis in fact) that would have made Karl Rove blush. If that's not deliberately and publicly attempting to drive down a player's value, not to mention instill a sense of fear and alarm in the fan base, I don't know what is.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> No, just no Chandler is a much better player then Thomas right now its not even close. Chandler has turned into an amazing rebounder and knows his role on offense, Tyrus doesnt even know what possition he is.



That's entirely different than what I'm talking about. Chandler is a better rebounder and is taller than Tyrus. He still can't catch a pass. Tyrus can. Tyrus has better ballhandling skills. Tyrus has better touch around the basket (admittedly, both are bad). These strike me as basketball skills.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Paxson hit the airwaves and print reporters with a well-orchestrated Eddy Curry=Hank Gathers=Reggie Lewis onslaught (with no basis in fact) that would have made Karl Rove blush. If that's not deliberately and publicly attempting to drive down a player's value, not to mention instill a sense of fear and alarm in the fan base, I don't know what is.


That is a misrepresentation of what he did. And even if its accurate (its not), it doesn't mean that Paxson deliberately fabricated his concern specifically to drive down Curry's market value so as to sign him at a cheaper price. You impute a sinister motive with no evidence whatsoever to support it.

I too wish the search function worked. I recall one time there was an audio interview that you and a few other got all worked up over because supposedly Paxson said that Curry=Gathers=Lewis. And when I then listened to it, and typed out verbatim what he actually said, it wasn't even remotely close to what you guys were claiming. Not even close. 

This type of thing happened often back then. 

As I said before, if it was all just a ploy then why didn't they just drop the DNA test requirement when Curry called their bluff? They had the vast majority of physician opinion by that time saying the test wasn't needed. They could have simply deferred to the weight of authority and lost no face in the process. 

Right or wrong, they believed it. 

You made some fantastic posts back then about why the test wasn't needed and why the team was wrong for requiring it. It was very informative. Indeed, over time I've come to agree with you that the Bulls were wrong for requiring the test. 

But the rest of this stuff is just unabashed speculation. I know you think Big Jerry is a piece of ****. Lots of people do. And while I don't agree, I understand. But I don't understand how you could think that John Paxson could be complicit in what is essentially deplorable fraud through a slander campaign engineered deliberately to adversely impact a kid's career not just with the Bulls, but around the entirety of the NBA.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That is a misrepresentation of what he did. And even if its accurate (its not), it doesn't mean that Paxson deliberately fabricated his concern specifically to drive down Curry's market value so as to sign him at a cheaper price. You impute a sinister motive with no evidence whatsoever to support it.


It's not a misrepresentation whatsoever. Paxson took great pains to link Eddy Curry's name with Hank Gathers's and Reggie Lewis's. Mind you, this was *after* supposedly seeking out all the various medical opinons and getting expert advice around the globe. There isn't a sports cardiologist out there who would have told Paxson that Lewis and Gathers had HCM -- not one with a license to practice medicine, anyway.



> As I said before, if it was all just a ploy then why didn't they just drop the DNA test requirement when Curry called their bluff? They had the vast majority of physician opinion by that time saying the test wasn't needed. They could have simply deferred to the weight of authority and lost no face in the process.


They simply weren't willing to pay Curry what he wanted on an uninsured contract. The one contrarian medical opinion gave them a basis for not re-signing Eddy, and buoyed along by the smear campaign, it let them off the hook with the fans, 99.9% of whom were happy to be coming off a great season and expecting Eddy and Tyson to be given long-term extensions. 



> But I don't understand how you could think that John Paxson could be complicit in what is essentially deplorable fraud through and slander campaign engineered deliberately to adversely impact a kid's career not just with the Bulls, but around the entirety of the NBA.


I think you're being a little melodramatic here. I'm not accusing Paxson of suppressing safety flaws at the Bhopal plant or overseeing the massacre at Srebrenica.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> It's not a misrepresentation whatsoever. Paxson took great pains to link Eddy Curry's name with Hank Gathers's and Reggie Lewis's. Mind you, this was *after* supposedly seeking out all the various medical opinons and getting expert advice around the globe. There isn't a sports cardiologist out there who would have told Paxson that Lewis and Gathers had HCM -- not one with a license to practice medicine, anyway.


Paxson never, ever said that Curry had HCM. He never said "Curry has the same thing Lewis and Gathers had" or anything even remotely like that. 

He said he wanted a test to determine if Curry was genetically predisposed to HCM. And HCM is what Gathers and Lewis had. It is exactly what the Bulls wanted to find out. 

Wrongly, as I've come to believe. 



> They simply weren't willing to pay Curry what he wanted on an uninsured contract. The one contrarian medical opinion gave them a basis for not re-signing Eddy, and buoyed along by the smear campaign, it let them off the hook with the fans, 99.9% of whom were happy to be coming off a great season and expecting Eddy and Tyson to be given long-term extensions.


Then they should have just traded him without first publicly stating that he might die. They could have revealed the rest of the stuff to the fan base exactly 30 seconds after trading him if they were worried about their reaction. 

No smart GM or owner - I don't think you doubt their intelligence, just their motives - would tank the trade value of a player by expressing concerns that he could be a death risk, if they just wanted to get rid of him. 



> I think you're being a little melodramatic here. I'm not accusing Paxson of suppressing safety flaws at the Bhopal plant or overseeing the massacre at Srebrenica.


I don't think its melodramatic at all. The words are colorful, but they are used to describe the exact scheme you allege and its ramifications. No more, no less. 

I'd rather not go through all of this again, so this will be the end of it for me. As Bill O'Reilly says, you have the last word. :biggrin:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Add to it the fact the Bulls could offer him significantly more money (again, just like Bosh), and I tend to think the Bulls could have told him to suck it up. Perhaps with Brand they would have picked besides Curry (who would be hard to fit with Brand), and gotten more immediate help (Jrich, RJeff, Battier, Murphy, Arenas, Boozer, Johnson? The list of guys we passed on in that draft is long and scary).


Bulls had Brand for 2 more years guaranteed. Funny thing is that 2 years later Brand said he wouldn't play for the clippers. As he signed the offer sheet. Which Clips matched to look him in for 6 years.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And HCM is what Gathers and Lewis had.


This isn't true, though. That's my point.

From Maron himself:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...bbcfa289477a39515b9fc903&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha 



> Other possible causes of sudden death, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, were excluded4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13.


And Lewis died of cocaine-induced cardiomyopathy, not autossomal dominant inherited HCM (don't sue me, Donna Lewis!).

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_511.html
http://www.ronsuskind.com/articles/000038.html




> No smart GM or owner - I don't think you doubt their intelligence, just their motives - would tank the trade value of a player by expressing concerns that he could be a death risk, if they just wanted to get rid of him.


They weren't hurting his trade value for any team that had even a basic handle on the medical issues at hand. 



> I don't think its melodramatic at all. The words are colorful, but they are used to describe the exact scheme you allege and its ramifications. No more, no less.


It's very melodramatic with respect to consequences. Pax and the Bulls didn't have a medical or a legal leg to stand on, and the worst thing that could have happened to Curry was getting to choose from 10 or 15 or 20 or more teams that would have signed him to a full MLE contract. Sure, that would have been a $25 million haircut, but whatever.

It's a business, and sometimes it's a tough business. That's fine. Let's just not pretend that Pax didn't viciously hardball Eddy, or that all he and Reinsdorf cared about was Eddy's health.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

As Scott May clearly demonstrated, they did not have HCM and the Bulls were clearly in a position to know this, given that the guy they relied on as the definitive source on this stuff stated as much.

I'll disagree with him, however, and say that going on the radio and tying in Curry's taking a test to those guys' deaths, which he certainly did do, was less than honest. They didn't die of HCM, and thus a dna test to rule it out wouldn't have had any affect on them.

Further, the same tests tests that Curry passed raised significant red flags for Gathers and Lewis.

To summarize: the tests Curry passed uncovered obvious problems in the guys that died. The additional test requested of Curry would not have uncovered the problem in the guys that died.

This was all information Paxson and the Bulls most certainly knew. Hell, they were going on Maron as the prime expert in the field, and he wrote most of the stuff on Gathers. The info on Lewis is widely cited. If Pax didn't know these things, he was clearly guilty of gross incompetence. 

Since I don't think he's a total ****ing moron, I think he new all of this.

But to admit he knew it requires to to admit that he had no business talking about Lewis and Gathers in the same breath as Curry, at least without mentioning those very obvious differences. 

Which is probably why you are so reticent to admit the evidence (which is overwhemling) that Scott has pointed out.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> *The Bulls arn't desperate for wins, or desperate to make money as a business either. What we're desperate for and learning towards is to be a championship team again. Reinsdorf is not going to fire Paxson for a very very long time,*


The crux of most of the arguments I'm seeing for Pax is that, since we're not losing and we're profitable, Reinsdorf won't can him.

I agree with that belief.

But that's entirely different than what a fan should be willing or happy to accept. High standards, I know, but I wouldn't be happy with a team that cruises along to 40-45 wins every year and then doesn't have much chance in the playofs. I think Reinsdorf would be fairly content with that, however, and probably some fans would too.



> *We're a contending team people, we're one of the top teams in the east*,


We don't seem to be in contention to me, and we're currently the 5th seed in the East. We don't even get a home court playoff series if the playoffs started today.



> we're one of the most profitable teams in the league, we're still a young and relatively inexperienced team. Some of your standards and demands on teams, management and just basketball in general is so unrealistic. It is hard for any team to win a championship, if your a follower of the NBA. Its just not about constantly making changes after every lose, its about staying constant more than anything, and making consistent smart decisions and i think Paxson does a great job.


We're finishing out our second season with one quality big. That's gotta change.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Further, the same tests tests that Curry passed raised significant red flags for Gathers and Lewis.
> 
> To summarize: the tests Curry passed uncovered obvious problems in the guys that died. The additional test requested of Curry would not have uncovered the problem in the guys that died.
> 
> ...


Completely agree.

Pax had zero right to throw those names around so casually. 

Let's not forget Pax got himself in trouble months after the trade for discussing additional, previously undisclosed medical details about Curry.

His behavior during the whole fiasco is still a black mark IMHO.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Then they should have just traded him without first publicly stating that he might die. They could have revealed the rest of the stuff to the fan base exactly 30 seconds after trading him if they were worried about their reaction.
> 
> No smart GM or owner - I don't think you doubt their intelligence, just their motives - would tank the trade value of a player by expressing concerns that he could be a death risk, if they just wanted to get rid of him.


I agree. The idea that Paxson deliberately drove Curry's market value down AND that he wanted to trade him is absurd. Right or wrong, all of the evidence suggests that Bulls management was sincerely concerned about Curry's health (and the possibility that he might drop dead on the court). 

As the negotiations dragged on, both sides probably became exasperated and decided the best thing to do was to part ways. If this had been Paxsons intention at the start, he would have put Curry on the market in July, when there were more teams capable of bidding for his services at the beginning of the free agent period.

That said, it seems to me that the entire situation was poorly managed, both by Paxson and by Curry's agent(s). For starters, there was way too much talking to the press by both sides. Curry ended up with a much smaller contract than he would have if the publicity had been avoided, and Paxson ended up having to offer him up in a fire-sale trade in September that severely disrupted the team last year.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

McBulls said:


> That said, it seems to me that the entire situation was poorly managed, both by Paxson and by Curry's agent(s). For starters, there was way too much talking to the press by both sides. Curry ended up with a much smaller contract than he would have if the publicity had been avoided, and Paxson ended up having to offer him up in a fire-sale trade in September that severely disrupted the team last year.



I agree. Although posters can disagree on motives they have to agree that the situation was poorly managed. Pax has to take responsibility for this. IMO this was a blunder among other blunders that he has made and this is where we started with this thread in the first place.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Paxson hit the airwaves and print reporters with a well-orchestrated Eddy Curry=Hank Gathers=Reggie Lewis onslaught (with no basis in fact) that would have made Karl Rove blush. If that's not deliberately and publicly attempting to drive down a player's value, not to mention instill a sense of fear and alarm in the fan base, I don't know what is.


A lot of people view DNA-gate as something Paxson used to get Eddy out of town. You did some fine resarch at the time, and it certainly leads credibility to your theory.

I think the flaw in the argument is if Paxson was so smart and calculating in trying to drive down Eddy's value, why would he then trade him away at that lower value? I do think he was using the uninsurable contract portion as reason to drive down Eddy's contract, which I don't find all that unreasonable a position. For all we know, the insurance company said that they would insure the contract depending on the results of the DNA test. 

I also do not find it an unreasonable position to believe Paxson and JR made a decision based on the advice of doctors. He got various opinions, so he went with the most conservative one. Isn't that what most people without medical expertise do, especially if you have the assets to shell out to some of the best in the world?

Of course, my position isn't any more provable either. This was one situation where I gave Paxson the benefit of the doubt (or blindly defended Paxson if charlie wants to put it that way). If he felt it was a moral/ethical decision, I can't say I can fault him even if I would have done something different. Of course, I could believe he is a liar as well.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> As Scott May clearly demonstrated, they did not have HCM and the Bulls were clearly in a position to know this, given that the guy they relied on as the definitive source on this stuff stated as much.
> 
> I'll disagree with him, however, and say that going on the radio and tying in Curry's taking a test to those guys' deaths, which he certainly did do, was less than honest. They didn't die of HCM, and thus a dna test to rule it out wouldn't have had any affect on them.


But thats the whole problem Mike. Paxson did not do what you guys are saying he did. Its that simple. 

He was NOT saying that Curry=Gathers=Lewis. Never, ever, ever happened. If it did, I missed it. And I was pretty active in those discussions. Indeed, he went to great pains to repeatedly say that "Eddy probably doensn't have HCM" and "Eddy is probably perfectly healthy" and stuff like that. 

I remember several times typing out verbatim what he was saying to illustrate that what some of the posters were claiming was patently false. And it was patently false.

But like so many things on this board, over time the lie becomes a prerceived reality.

Did the media go crazy comparing Curry with Lewis and Gathers? Absolutely. Did they get the medicine and diagnoses wrong? Absolutely. Hell, this board was by far the best source for information on this issue specifically because of ScottMay. 

But then people were saying that the Bulls were using the media as mouthpieces and that the misinformation was really coming from the Berto in a deliberate attempt to destroy Curry's marketability.

Wild speculation and laughably illogical when connected to the imputed motive - to force him out or to drive down his market value. Its logically inconsistent for the reasons I've already mentioned that no one has adequately rebutted.



> Further, the same tests tests that Curry passed raised significant red flags for Gathers and Lewis.


True. 



> To summarize: the tests Curry passed uncovered obvious problems in the guys that died. The additional test requested of Curry would not have uncovered the problem in the guys that died.


True. 



> This was all information Paxson and the Bulls most certainly knew. Hell, they were going on Maron as the prime expert in the field, and he wrote most of the stuff on Gathers. The info on Lewis is widely cited. If Pax didn't know these things, he was clearly guilty of gross incompetence.


Agree. 



> Since I don't think he's a total ****ing moron, I think he new all of this.


I'm sure he did. 



> But to admit he knew it requires to to admit that he had no business talking about Lewis and Gathers in the same breath as Curry, at least without mentioning those very obvious differences.


I don't agree with that at all. First, he didn't link those players the way you guys are describing it. It didn't happen. 

Second, to the extent that he did mention their names it was in a generic sense - like "heart issues in athletes are serious as we've seen with Hank Gathers" etc, etc. Nothing wrong with that at all when you are explaining to the public why you are wanting a controversial DNA test. But Paxson NEVER said, "We fear Curry has what Gathers had" or any proximate variation on that theme. 



> Which is probably why you are so reticent to admit the evidence (which is overwhemling) that Scott has pointed out.


Come on, Mike. I am never reticent to abmit a provable fact and find this a little bit insulting. I am quick to back off of a position if someone illustrates that it is predicated on inaccurate information. Hell, I'm the annoying guy in here always beating the drum about the need to debate with intellectual honesty and support. I don't dispute *anything* Scott says about the medicine and relative diagnoses. Indeed, I thank him for his diligence.

If you guys show me where Paxson was saying Curry=Gathers=Lewis, I'll concede the point. The fact that their names may have been mentioned tangentially in the scope of a larger discussion doesn't cut it. 

Finally, even if Paxson was reckless or stupid in dropping those names, it does not even remotely support the paranoid delusion that he did it with evil motive to (completely illogically) drive down Curry's market value or force him out of town. 

Which is the ONLY notion I'm really trying to dispell here. There is absolutely no support for that theory at all beyond wild speculation from a handful of fans who were already predisposed to characterize the Bulls' organization as the Evil Empire. 

I completely agree with you guys that Paxson didn't handle the situation well. Indeed, he was far too emotional about it even after it happened (which further illustrates the genuineness of his motive). Initially, I agreed with him. In hindsight, I think they were too conservative with the DNA request (though I'm glad that Curry is a Knick, but thats a different discussion). I don't think it was handled well *at all*. But there is no evidence that they handled it with ill will.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> But thats the whole problem Mike. Paxson did not do what you guys are saying he did. Its that simple.
> 
> He was NOT saying that Curry=Gathers=Lewis. Never, ever, ever happened. If it did, I missed it. And I was pretty active in those discussions. Indeed, he went to great pains to repeatedly say that "Eddy probably doensn't have HCM" and "Eddy is probably perfectly healthy" and stuff like that.
> 
> ...



This about sums it up for me. I believe the situation was mishandled rather badly, but I believe Pax was operating in good faith. I also agree that it's completely counterintuitive that Pax would try to drive down Curry's trade value by insinuating that he may drop dead at any moment.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Did the media go crazy comparing Curry with Lewis and Gathers? Absolutely. Did they get the medicine and diagnoses wrong? Absolutely. Hell, this board was by far the best source for information on this issue specifically because of ScottMay.
> ...
> Second, to the extent that he did mention their names it was in a generic sense - like "heart issues in athletes are serious as we've seen with Hank Gathers" etc, etc. Nothing wrong with that at all when you are explaining to the public why you are wanting a controversial DNA test.


I think this is the basic disagreement here. We agree that the media was going crazy. We agree that Pax had knowledge of the situation that could have greatly clarified it. But instead of being forthright and clarifying those misconceptions, he went to those same media outlets that were going crazy and talked in vague terms like you describe above. Not linking them per se, but allowing that perception, which he knew to be false, to remain, when he could have definitively quashed it by pointing out those facts above.

In practice it's not a lot different, to me, from linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps nobody came out and explicitly did it, but the perception was certainly allowed and tacitly encouraged to flourish. 

I don't know what, exactly, his motivation was for doing this. It's certainly possible it was even a benevolent motivation. I wouldn't rule out something "we are just concerned and we want to be as careful as possible" at all. However, good intent or bad, I think it was a wrong and somewhat dishonest course of action.

Put simply, he may not have started the fire, but he was figuratively standing there with a bucket of water and chose not to put it out.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

At the end of one of the radio interviews, right before going off the air, Paxson interjected a comment like, "If the DNA test existed back in 1993, Reggie Lewis would probably be alive today." I am certain of this.

You simply will not convince me that this statement wasn't clearly meant to convince the interviewer and listeners that Eddy Curry would die if he didn't take the genetic test. It's a big part of Paxson's job to reconcile his and ownership's positions with the fans. I'm fine with that. But again, let's not pretend that this wasn't a massive, calculated falsehood. It had no basis in fact and it was throwing red meat to the media (esp the Mike North crowd).

As for Pax's emotions during and after the fact, they prove absolutely nothing. Remember, O.J. Simpson* was often visibly upset during his trial and afterward stridently insisted he was going to find the real killers. 

* Note: this is clearly not a smear. I did not say that Paxson beheaded his wife and her lover in broad daylight.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's entirely different than what I'm talking about. Chandler is a better rebounder and is taller than Tyrus. He still can't catch a pass. Tyrus can. Tyrus has better ballhandling skills. Tyrus has better touch around the basket (admittedly, both are bad). These strike me as basketball skills.


Size doesnt matter that much, for one Tyrus Thomas is 6'9 and size should not keep him from being a great rebounder. I agree that Tyrus is a better ballhandler then Chandler but thats not saying much since Chandler is THE worst ball handler in the NBA, Tyrus would be in the top 5 or 10.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Size doesnt matter that much,



Tell that to my girlfriend.

Zing! Haha.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> At the end of one of the radio interviews, right before going off the air, Paxson interjected a comment like, "If the DNA test existed back in 1993, Reggie Lewis would probably be alive today." I am certain of this.
> 
> *You simply will not convince me that this statement wasn't clearly meant to convince the interviewer and listeners that Eddy Curry would die if he didn't take the genetic test.*


Really? Wow.

Well then, I won't even try, but Wow.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Really? Wow.
> 
> Well then, I won't even try, but Wow.


What do you think his intent was, Transplant?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Tell that to my girlfriend.
> 
> Zing! Haha.


Hey the same goes for women buddy, we dont want to be driving our Rolls Royce into the Bat Cave for Gods sake.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Hey the same goes for women buddy, we dont want to be driving our Rolls Royce into the Bat Cave for Gods sake.


Damn it, thebizkit69u, why couldn't I have known you when I was writing my wedding vows?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Damn it, thebizkit69u, why couldn't I have known you when I was writing my wedding vows?


 I guarantee you that your honeymoon would have been even better if you would have incorporated some of my classy little words of wisdom into your vows.

thebizkit69u= Class. Remember that.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> What do you think his intent was, Transplant?


Thanks for asking.

I think his intent was to convey that the test the team wanted Curry to have could save Curry's life IF Curry had HCM...that having the test was not only in the team's best interest, but Curry's as well.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Thanks for asking.
> 
> I think his intent was to convey that the test the team wanted Curry to have could save Curry's life IF Curry had HCM...that having the test was not only in the team's best interest, but Curry's as well.


Couldn't that have been done by just saying so, rather than by saying something to the effect that a DNA test could have saved Reggie Lewis when it couldn't have?

That sort of needless inaccuracy is the sort of thing that rightly or wrongly gives rise to all the "conspiracy theory" sort of stuff you don't like. People don't like it when things don't make sense. Perhaps he just wasn't thinking, perhaps it was something else.

But he really could have done everyone a service by clariying the discussion instead of taking it in that direction. Nobody would have cared if he had said, "Hey, Mike North, you know, we've looked at this and Curry's situation is clearly not like Reggie Lewis' or Hank Gathers'. The tests Curry took and checked out on revealed pretty serious problems in those guys. They didn't heed the warnings. That being said, there's new technology available now, and we'd rather be safe than sorry".

Absolutely nothing wrong with saying something to that effect. Just the facts. It would have cleared up a lot, in fact. But instead, Pax took it in an entirely different direction.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

basically pax has until his young team gets old and starts a downward spiral and misses the playoffs and a change is obviously needed.

Reinsdorf has some negative qualities but lack of loyalty isn't one of them ...so sit back and watch ben wallace because as he goes ..so does pax.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Couldn't that have been done by just saying so, rather than by saying something to the effect that a DNA test could have saved Reggie Lewis when it couldn't have?
> 
> That sort of needless inaccuracy is the sort of thing that rightly or wrongly gives rise to all the "conspiracy theory" sort of stuff you don't like. People don't like it when things don't make sense. Perhaps he just wasn't thinking, perhaps it was something else.
> 
> ...


he just tried to scare people into backing him...sad to say it worked better than it should.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> basically pax has until his young team gets old and starts a downward spiral and misses the playoffs and a change is obviously needed.
> 
> Reinsdorf has some negative qualities but lack of loyalty isn't one of them ...*so sit back and watch ben wallace because as he goes ..so does pax.*


Right. Because Ben Wallace is a much bigger factor in the destiny of the Chicago Bulls than the combined efforts and developement of: (a) Kirk Hinrich; (b) Andres Nocioni; (c) Luol Deng; (d) Ben Gordon; (e) Thabo Sefolosha; (f) Tyrus Thomas; and (g) Knicks' lottery pick.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Right. Because Ben Wallace is a much bigger factor in the destiny of the Chicago Bulls than the combined efforts and developement of: (a) Kirk Hinrich; (b) Andres Nocioni; (c) Luol Deng; (d) Ben Gordon; (e) Thabo Sefolosha; (f) Tyrus Thomas; and (g) Knicks' lottery pick.



In other words if Ben Wallace went down tonight with a career ending injury that would be more determinative of the future of the Bulls even if Kirk/Ben G./Tyrus/Thabo, etc. raised their games to all-star level within the next two years?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

charlietyra said:


> In other words if Ben Wallace went down tonight with a career ending injury that would be more determinative of the future of the Bulls even if Kirk/Ben G./Tyrus/Thabo, etc. raised their games to all-star level within the next two years?


I was trying to be sarcastic.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Couldn't that have been done by just saying so, rather than by saying something to the effect that a DNA test could have saved Reggie Lewis when it couldn't have?
> 
> That sort of needless inaccuracy is the sort of thing that rightly or wrongly gives rise to all the "conspiracy theory" sort of stuff you don't like. People don't like it when things don't make sense. Perhaps he just wasn't thinking, perhaps it was something else.
> 
> ...


First off, I was asked what I thought Paxson's intent was. What I said is my guess as to his intent. Based on what he said, I think my take is EASILY more reasonable than that his intent was "to convince the interviewer and listeners that Eddy Curry would die if he didn't take the genetic test," but maybe that's just me. While I greatly respect the poster, that interpretation, and the poster's statement that he could not possibly be convinced that Paxson meant anything other than his interpretation, is well, kind of bizarre to me. I suppose that if it was one of the posters for whom I have less respect it wouldn't be as bizarre.

Actually, while few of us, when asked unexpected questions get the answer PERFECT, I think Paxson was well-prepared by the Bulls' PR folks for this question. My take is that he wanted to dramatize the overriding importance of requiring the test for both the Bulls' and Curry's future well being and the reasonableness of the team's position. Nothing more. Nothing less.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Right. Because Ben Wallace is a much bigger factor in the destiny of the Chicago Bulls than the combined efforts and developement of: (a) Kirk Hinrich; (b) Andres Nocioni; (c) Luol Deng; (d) Ben Gordon; (e) Thabo Sefolosha; (f) Tyrus Thomas; and (g) Knicks' lottery pick.



no but he is the guy pax is latching his credibility to ...the trading of the 3 C's , jalen rose, donyell marshall...all for cap space to grab Ben wallace ...if wallace turns into a disaster , the worm will turn against pax .

ben wallace is the guy thats supposed to take the bulls to the next level , thats what the bulls brass is banking on ...or at least were until they have come to the conclusion that it wasn't enough ...hence the gasol courtship.


----------

