# Sam Smith: Skiles wanted Curry gone



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

From the last edition of the Sam Smith QandA. 

Seemed worthy of its own thread. Wow!



> Do you think Eddy Curry is starting to turn his career around in New York? It's hard not to root for the guy; he has gone through so much. --Charlie Armstrong, Kalamazoo, Mich.
> 
> I agree. Eddy is one of the nicer guys who have come through here. He does have real offensive talent, if not always the desire, so he was never going to work here. Though he almost was here. The Bulls were committed to giving him, albeit reluctantly, a big extension in the 2004-05 season before his heart episode. *Skiles had lobbied strongly against it and that had a lot to do with his upset about signing a contract extension. He felt if he helped improve Curry's play, which he did, then he would be more marketable and the team could trade him. When the Bulls didn't, it created hard feelings between the coaching staff and management that eventually were settled when Skiles re-signed.* Though I was a longtime advocate of a deal because I believed he'd never fit in the new regime, I root for him personally and he's been very impressive the last two weeks and could come back to haunt the Bulls if he keeps it up and the Knicks have a good season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sam Smith said:


> Skiles had lobbied strongly against it and that had a lot to do with his upset about signing a contract extension. He felt if he helped improve Curry's play, which he did, then he would be more marketable and the team could trade him. When the Bulls didn't, it created hard feelings between the coaching staff and management that eventually were settled when Skiles re-signed.



Damn. That's messed up.

Skiles making Curry look good so they can trade him.

Stunning.

ATS. ATS. ATS. Sam Smith is a fool. LALALALALLA. Not reading this. Sam Smith! Sam Smith!! ATS! ATS!!


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I am so confused. Sam Smith has this kind of knowledge and instead of telling us about it long ago he thought his assinine trade proposals were better material, WTF?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> I am so confused. Sam Smith has this kind of knowledge and instead of telling us about it long ago he thought his assinine trade proposals were better material, WTF?


He's mentioned this before, at least parts of it. I know he's written about Skiles wanting to trade Curry and Pax being reluctant to do so.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The small rift between Pax and Skiles the summer of Currygate and the Skiles contract now makes a lot more sense.

Quite the power play by Skiles. He ultimatley won. Too bad the Bulls regressed. 

I really wonder how DNAGate would have gone down with a star level player that Skiles approved of.

Its also interesting what Skiles real motivation was behind getting the most out of Curry and Chandler during the #3 in the East season. Money talks.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Wow, is there any doubt he feels the same way about Gordon? 

I don't like the idea that Skiles has a big impact in personnel decisions. I know that he's the coach, but he appears more inflexible than Paxson in terms of accepting players that aren't like Hinrich and Duhon, and that's not a good thing, imo.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

enough with the gates already! :azdaja:


----------



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

> Skiles had lobbied strongly against it and that had a lot to do with his upset about signing a contract extension. He felt if he helped improve Curry's play, which he did, then he would be more marketable and the team could trade him. When the Bulls didn't, it created hard feelings between the coaching staff and management that eventually were settled when Skiles re-signed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I don't like the idea that Skiles has a big impact in personnel decisions. I know that he's the coach, but he appears more inflexible than Paxson in terms of accepting players that aren't like Hinrich and Duhon, and that's not a good thing, imo.


Yah, I agree.

Its not really a surprise though. At least the team decisions make a little more sense now, even though I don't agree with many of them.

I would have loved to hear the phone conversations between Pax, Jerry and Skiles before the Skiles contract signing.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Interesting to hear these details, though it's not entirely surprising and it makes perfect sense. It didn't take a genious to realize that Skiles wasn't a fan of Curry's lazy persona (at least the perceived laziness; it's still hard to tell with the guy). A guy of his size pulling down a paltry 5-6 rebounds per game and getting routinely forced into turnovers by smaller players would drive most coaches crazy.

I still to this day believe that Paxson wanted to keep Curry around. The circumstances, between Skiles and DNA-gate, just didn't allow that to happen.

Despite Curry's big numbers recently, I'm still more than happy with what we got back in the trade and I don't think there's any reason to be disppointed with the outcome. (And personally, I really don't think Curry is going to keep this up based on his past history.)


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I really wonder how DNAGate would have gone down with a star level player that Skiles approved of.
> 
> Its also interesting what Skiles real motivation was behind getting the most out of Curry and Chandler that season. Money talks.


Showcasing players is part of the game, but for an entire season when the coach had his on contract extension at stake? Some rumors don't pass the smell test, and this is one of them.

But I wouldn't be surprised that DNAGate was played out the way it did to generate an excuse for trading Curry (and trick IT a bit). Curry just isn't Skiles kind of player, and once the Bulls resigned Skiles to a long-term contract it was probably best to trade Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Could be bad news for Ben Gordon fans.

At least Skiles contract is not up the summer of the Ben Gordon resigning.

It might be time for bringing on the B to C guy at that point anyway.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:



> Showcasing players is part of the game, but for an entire season when the coach had his on contract extension at stake? Some rumors don't pass the smell test, and this is one of them.


My take.

Not a traditional "showcase." Its incentives being aligned between management and its coach.

Skiles had the incentive to get the most out of Curry for two reasons.

1.) Makes him look like a guy that can develop young players. (bigger $$$$ ... contact coming up)
2.) Makes Curry more marketable for a trade so Skiles can be rid of him (even though Curry helped Skiles win).

Curry ends up better off ($$$$). Skiles ends up better off ($$$$).

Wheather the Bulls team was better off is for another 1,000 threads on this board.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> But I wouldn't be surprised that DNAGate was played out the way it did to generate an excuse for trading Curry (and trick IT a bit). Curry just isn't Skiles kind of player, and once the Bulls resigned Skiles to a long-term contract it was probably best to trade Curry.


I agree.

Which is why I'd love to hear the phone conversations between Jerry, Paxson and Skiles right before the Skiles contract signing.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Could be bad news for Ben Gordon fans.
> 
> At least Skiles contract is not up the summer of the Ben Gordan resigning.
> 
> It might be time for bringing on the B to C guy at that point anyway.


You may be right, but I see Gordon and Curry as two completely different situations.

I see Gordon as the guy who has practically lived in the gym the past 2 summers, whereas Curry would be taking one of his vacation/cruises. Skiles has given Gordon alot of credit for his work ethic; I don't recall any such praise for Curry.

The Gordon/Skiles feuding has appeared to be Gordon's doing (i.e. wanting a bigger role, more shots, etc); Curry/Skiles feud was Skiles doing (i.e. Curry not working up to Skiles' standards).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

First, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Skiles wanted Curry traded. There was never any doubt in my mind that it was Paxson who valued Curry, and not Skiles. 

Second, though, I don't really understand the report. 



> Though he almost was here. The Bulls were committed to giving him, albeit reluctantly, a big extension in the 2004-05 season before his heart episode. Skiles had lobbied strongly against it and that had a lot to do with his upset about signing a contract extension. He felt if he helped improve Curry's play, which he did, then he would be more marketable and the team could trade him. When the Bulls didn't, it created hard feelings between the coaching staff and management that eventually were settled when Skiles re-signed.


I'm going to say what I think it means, and then you guys tell me if you are taking it the same way. 

Skiles didn't want Curry and wanted him traded. So he tried to improve Curry's play, and presumably statistics, so that he'd be more valuable on the market when traded. 

Break: I think I totally understand that part and I think its perfectly reasonable. I'd do exactly the same thing if I were Skiles. End Break.

What I don't understand is what any of this has to do with Skiles contract extension. Is Sam saying that Skiles thought a good Curry trade would give Skiles better bargaining power in seeking his own extension? 

Because that doesn't make any sense and suggests one of two things. (1) Its bogus; or (2) Skiles is a moron when it comes to strategizing for a contract extension. 

Why would a valuable Curry trade - resulting from Skiles' coaching of Curry - increase Skiles' value as a coach any more than Paxson's decision to keep Curry based on his improvement under Skiles? Its completely illogical. 

Someone help me here. Am I nuts? Is Sam Smith nuts? Is Skiles nuts? Though I don't find it disturbing in the least, I do find it very confusing.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Someone help me here. Am I nuts? Is Sam Smith nuts? Is Skiles nuts? Though I don't find it disturbing in the least, I do find it very confusing.


Sam is nuts - at least, he's not always accurate.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> First, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Skiles wanted Curry traded. There was never any doubt in my mind that it was Paxson who valued Curry, and not Skiles.
> 
> Second, though, I don't really understand the report.
> 
> ...



My take:

Skiles wants Curry traded. Skiles believes playing him and developing him will help him be moved, so he does that. Then Curry is not traded. It's time for Skiles to re-sign, and he's upset that Curry has not been traded, which creates the conflict we all remember well from that process. His agent, Keith Glass, causes drama in the media. They eventually work through it, re-sign Skiles, and deal Eddy. Skiles is then a happy camper. Pax, at least initially, is not.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Curry had to play 28 minutes a game, he was the only low-post wide body on the team. it's not a showcase when there's no other option.

He wasnt Skiles' type of player. Think of that what you will, but now that there's no Curry, we are better in three areas:

Offense

Defense

Draft picks / assets for trade


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

yodurk said:


> You may be right, but I see Gordon and Curry as two completely different situations.
> 
> I see Gordon as the guy who has practically lived in the gym the past 2 summers, whereas Curry would be taking one of his vacation/cruises. Skiles has given Gordon alot of credit for his work ethic; I don't recall any such praise for Curry.
> 
> The Gordon/Skiles feuding has appeared to be Gordon's doing (i.e. wanting a bigger role, more shots, etc); Curry/Skiles feud was Skiles doing (i.e. Curry not working up to Skiles' standards).


The two are actually extremely similar. Both Gordon and Curry are good on offense and average on defense. Both have defensive lapses and turnover problems. Gordon also has a tendency to play outside the offense and shoot when Skiles would prefer a pass. When Gordon takes a difficult 3, Skiles will sometimes put his face in his hands and groan dejectedly-- even if Ben makes the shot. I've seen him do it many times this year. (I kinda agree with Skiles. The ball movement has been absolutely beautiful the past few games, and when Gordon comes in, the offense tends to stagnate a bit. But it's important to remember that the Bulls have been running up the score against some of the worst defensive teams in the league.) 

The only question is whether Skiles recognizes and values that Ben is the only player with the quickness and ability to score against tight defenses and/or endgame situations.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

This also helps highlight one of my larger gripes about the board:

The use of the term "PaxSkiles" as though the two are one person and always on the same page. I think this story shows that the two of them can have their own separate and divergent agendas.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DengNabbit said:


> Curry had to play 28 minutes a game, he was the only low-post wide body on the team. it's not a showcase when there's no other option.
> 
> He wasnt Skiles' type of player. Think of that what you will, but now that there's no Curry, we are better in three areas:
> 
> ...


Well, maybe not offense. It would be nice to have a guy who got the other teams bigs in foul trouble and scored 20 ppg, even if he couldn't pass the ball to save his life.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Well, maybe not offense. It would be nice to have a guy who got the other teams bigs in foul trouble and scored 20 ppg, even if he couldn't pass the ball to save his life.



the way we move the ball around, the propensity with which we turn it over, the amount of points we can score, the number of offensive players we have who are not huffing and puffing all second half...........


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Could be bad news for Ben Gordon fans.
> 
> At least Skiles contract is not up the summer of the Ben Gordan resigning.
> 
> It might be time for bringing on the B to C guy at that point anyway.


Could be new ammo for K4E? So he can come back later on and say "I told you so?" You mut be happy to hear this news?


----------



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

rwj333 said:


> The two are actually extremely similar. Both Gordon and Curry are good on offense and average on defense. Both have defensive lapses and turnover problems. Gordon also has a tendency to play outside the offense and shoot when Skiles would prefer a pass. When Gordon takes a difficult 3, Skiles will sometimes put his face in his hands and groan dejectedly-- even if Ben makes the shot. I've seen him do it many times this year. (I kinda agree with Skiles. The ball movement has been absolutely beautiful the past few games, and when Gordon comes in, the offense tends to stagnate a bit. But it's important to remember that the Bulls have been running up the score against some of the worst defensive teams in the league.)
> 
> The only question is whether Skiles recognizes and values that Ben is the only player with the quickness and ability to score against tight defenses and/or endgame situations.


The reason the ball moves a lot and looks beautiful is because we still live and die by the jumpshot. Those shots have been falling as we've begun the easy part of our schedule.

Gordon does hold the ball long at point guard, but most of the time he gets himself or someone else an opportunity within a shot or a single pass.



> The use of the term "PaxSkiles" as though the two are one person and always on the same page. I think this story shows that the two of them can have their own separate and divergent agendas.


Pax and Skiles can think differently, but it has always seemed like Pax (Tim Thomas ? JR Smith) does a lot of bending over just for Skiles.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> My take:
> 
> Skiles wants Curry traded. Skiles believes playing him and developing him will help him be moved, so he does that. Then Curry is not traded. It's time for Skiles to re-sign, and he's upset that Curry has not been traded, which creates the conflict we all remember well from that process. His agent, Keith Glass, causes drama in the media. They eventually work through it, re-sign Skiles, and deal Eddy. Skiles is then a happy camper. Pax, at least initially, is not.


Whats wrong with that? 

Coaches and management struggle over roster compilation all the time. If that is all this report means, then I don't understand most of the posts in this thread.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I imagine Skiles is the more dominant persona in the two-headed "PaxSkiles" monster. I'd imagine that Pax would put up with the more colorful characters, shall we say, whereas Skiles is actually more conservative of the two. Hell, I think he even votes G.O.P. Just my two cents.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> I imagine Skiles is the more dominant persona in the two-headed "PaxSkiles" monster. I'd imagine that Pax would put up with the more colorful characters, shall we say, whereas Skiles is actually more conservative of the two. Hell, I think he even votes G.O.P. Just my two cents.


Some interesting takes in this thread. 

Here's mine: Paxson is the boss. Period. End of discussion. He and Skiles just happen to agree about most things. But this story, assuming its accuracy (which I do not doubt), illustrates that when there is a diversion of interests, Paxson's preference prevails. As it should.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> Could be new armo for K4E?


I don't understand how it can be "ammo" for anyone. There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual with that report as it relates to Skiles' treatment of Curry.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> I imagine Skiles is the more dominant persona in the two-headed "PaxSkiles" monster. I'd imagine that Pax would put up with the more colorful characters, shall we say, whereas Skiles is actually more conservative of the two. Hell, I think he even votes G.O.P. Just my two cents.


Politically conservative doesn't mean he wants choir boys to make up his whole team. He's said he thinks the team is a bit quiet. What both Pax and Skiles want are people who work at their craft. For all the people who think Skiles banned Tim Thomas, I would bet it was more Pax with Skiles agreement. I've always thought Thomas whined once too often to Pax, but that's just a theory.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't understand how it can be "ammo" for anyone. There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual with that report as it relates to Skiles' treatment of Curry.



the ammo refers to a belief that this same scenario will happen with Gordon.


i dont see how we were "showcasing" Eddy, in that he was our one true center, and if anything he couldve been on the floor more than he was.

but i REALLY dont see the situation applying to Gordon. if Skiles wanted to help himself by making Gordon a more tradeable or marketable asset, he could stand to play Gordon more. as is, he isnt even starting these days. and Skiles is planning to coach after the end of this contract, i'm sure.


if Sam Smith believes this (and i'm not a Sam hater)... then why has Duhon always gotten every chance to supplant Gordon? even back then? answer: because Skiles believes the team is often better at the start of games when it has the poise he brings us. disagree with it or not, Skiles makes moves that he thinks will make the team better. no JFK conspiracy here.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> What I don't understand is what any of this has to do with Skiles contract extension. Is Sam saying that Skiles thought a good Curry trade would give Skiles better bargaining power in seeking his own extension?
> 
> Because that doesn't make any sense and suggests one of two things. (1) Its bogus; or (2) Skiles is a moron when it comes to strategizing for a contract extension.
> 
> ...


This is my wild guess (assuming what Smith reported is all true).

Skile doesn't like to be stuck with the team with Curry on in the long term after his (Skile's and Curry's) contract extension. He might have a timeline with certain roster in mind (certain types of players more likely) for his team to reach his (Skile's) ultimate goal. In his mind, with Curry still on his team the ultimate goal (whatever that is) is unlikely achieved while he is coaching Bulls. In that case, he doesn't want to stick with Bulls. (we all know about Skile and quitting).

Maybe, his ideal roster for his team require a center with solid defense (not necessarily offense) and as long as Curry is here and Skile too, Skile has to modify his own coaching philosophy (Skile’s idea of how game should be played to be a Championship team) to go around Curry's deficit. And he simply didn't want to do that because he already make up his mind that Curry never could be that kind of center no matter how long Skile coached him? 

So when it all looked like Curry would be still here, Skile had to look hard and think long before he committed to contract extension.

Does this scheme make sense at all?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

so let me get this straight. 

skiles wants curry traded so he plays him, ups the market value, when pax doesn't actively seek a trade, skiles, who is in the midst of his contract negotiation, throws a hissy fit? 

i'll never forget the interview skiles gave on the score when he was berated by one of the hosts (forget which one) for not accepting what was generally considered to be an outstanding deal considering "he really hadn't won anything yet".

and then the agent gets all indignant over the "lack of respect" for skiles?



wow.

classic *TDS*.






:cowboy:


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> The two are actually extremely similar. Both Gordon and Curry are good on offense and average on defense. Both have defensive lapses and turnover problems. Gordon also has a tendency to play outside the offense and shoot when Skiles would prefer a pass. When Gordon takes a difficult 3, Skiles will sometimes put his face in his hands and groan dejectedly-- even if Ben makes the shot. I've seen him do it many times this year. (I kinda agree with Skiles. The ball movement has been absolutely beautiful the past few games, and when Gordon comes in, the offense tends to stagnate a bit. But it's important to remember that the Bulls have been running up the score against some of the worst defensive teams in the league.)
> 
> The only question is whether Skiles recognizes and values that Ben is the only player with the quickness and ability to score against tight defenses and/or endgame situations.


One big difference between Curry and Gordon is that nobody question Ben's desire to get better at his game and his work ethic. Although nobody seems to question Curry was and is a nice kid, there was and is a lot of question mark on both Curry's desire and work ethic.

In my eyes, this difference can makes a huge difference how management (Paxon and Skile) see Ben's future as a Bull.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't understand how it can be "ammo" for anyone. There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual with that report as it relates to Skiles' treatment of Curry.


Using this report as a prelude of K4E's eventual bashing on Paxon and Skile upon possible (?) Gordon's departure next season or so is where I was getting at? (Although I do think paxon want Gordon to stay here) 

My bad attempt to be sarcastic.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> the ammo refers to a belief that this same scenario will happen with Gordon.


So? There is no doubt in my mind that Gordon is going to be traded. And I'd be disappointed if the coach and GM weren't doing what they needed to do to increase his market value.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I love how everyone starts throwing around “right” and “wrong” in these situations. Everyone is pursuing their own self-interest. No shock there.

The knock on Skiles is that he can’t get along with today’s “entitlement” NBA players and is so rigid that he’d rather quit than compromise his ideals (ayn rand would like this as well). While I respect someone who is actually willing to stand by what he or she believes, oftentimes it can hold you back, especially when your job is to get millionaire, ego-driven, guaranteed contract athletes to perform for you. It seems like PaxSkiles have mellowed on this front, if the Ben Wallace headband situation means anything.

Taking a young team and getting players like Curry and Chandler to produce, which they ultimately ended up doing under him, shows that he can work with today’s young NBA player and, in the case of Curry, someone who is far from a loose ball diver. This combined with the Bulls winning that season increases his marketability.

I think its good short term management on Paxson’s part, if it was his idea. The Bulls have a better chance of winning. The Bulls get to see what the Twin Towers can do when productive at age 22 (#3 team in East). The Bulls get to see if Skiles can hold it together if the $$$ is dangled in front of him. If a trade is the choice made, the value of the assets are greater. The Bulls ended up getting 2 1st round picks for Curry, which isn’t a bad return considering the corner they painted themselves into. One year later, things can get a little hairy if you decide that you want to keep both Skiles and Curry, as we saw, but at least they had more information to make a decision off of.

The knocks on Skiles from this is that he was lobbying to have Curry dumped, given that he rode that horse, along with Chandler, to the # 3 record in the east and probably the best coaching accomplishment of his NBA career. Its pretty clear he had it in for Chandler as well. Not really sticking up for the players that got you that fat extension, but whatever. I don’t think Skiles is a saint by any means, despite all “the right way” nonsense. 

I also question whether he values winning NBA games more than his “right way” ideology. It looks like he was winning to compromise his strong beliefs (playing the lazy) for that fat contract offer, but wanted the team to dump the players that helped him earn it before he signed it. Once his marketability was raised, he performed his power play to get the type of team that he wanted to coach, even if it wasn't as good a NBA team as the previous year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This also helps highlight one of my larger gripes about the board:
> 
> The use of the term "PaxSkiles" as though the two are one person and always on the same page. I think this story shows that the two of them can have their own separate and divergent agendas.


PaxSkiles was a white PG. Dished out lots of assists and shot a high % from outside. Couldn't jump, wasn't athletic. "The right way" was close to the floor, and perimiter oriented.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I love how everyone starts throwing around “right” and “wrong” in these situations. Everyone is pursuing their own self-interest. No shock there.


True.



> The knock on Skiles is that he can’t get along with today’s “entitlement” NBA players and is so rigid that he’d rather quit than compromise his ideals (ayn rand would like this as well). While I respect someone who is actually willing to stand by what he or she believes, oftentimes it can hold you back, especially when your job is to get millionaire, ego-driven, guaranteed contract athletes to perform for you. It seems like PaxSkiles have mellowed on this front, if the Ben Wallace headband situation means anything.
> 
> Taking a young team and getting players like Curry and Chandler to produce, which they ultimately ended up doing under him, shows that he can work with today’s young NBA player and, in the case of Curry, someone who is far from a loose ball diver. This combined with the Bulls winning that season increases his marketability.


Agree. 



> I think its good short term management on Paxson’s part, if it was his idea.


Based on the report, it appears it was the exact opposite of Paxson's idea. So I don't know what would even prompt you to write such a thing. 

Paxson wanted to keep Curry. You and I agree on this. 



> The Bulls have a better chance of winning. The Bulls get to see what the Twin Towers can do when productive at age 22 (#3 team in East). The Bulls get to see if Skiles can hold it together if the $$$ is dangled in front of him. If a trade is the choice made, the value of the assets are greater. The Bulls ended up getting 2 1st round picks for Curry, which isn’t a bad return considering the corner they painted themselves into.


Agree again. 



> The knocks on Skiles from this is that he was lobbying to have Curry dumped, given that he rode that horse, along with Chandler, to the # 3 record in the east and probably the best coaching accomplishment of his NBA career.


But I don't understand how that can be a "knock" if he didn't think Curry was the right long term fit for this team. That is exactly what I WANT a coach to be doing and communicating to management. 



> Its pretty clear he had it in for Chandler as well.


I don't think that is clear at all.



> Not really sticking up for the players that got you that fat extension, but whatever.


Is that what happened with Chandler? And if so, when? The summer Chandler got bank? Or the summer after he massively regressed?



> I don’t think Skiles is a saint by any means, despite all “the right way” nonsense.


Me neither. 



> I also question whether he values winning NBA games more than his “right way” ideology. It looks like he was winning to compromise his strong beliefs (playing the lazy) for that fat contract offer, but wanted the team to dump the players that helped him earn it before he signed it.


I find that very confusing. He wanted the team to dump one player that he didn't value. A player he clearly didn't consider important to the long term strength of the team. Thats what coaches are supposed to do. Give input on who they want and don't want. It is then up to the GM to agree or disagree. In this case, Paxson disagreed - much to his discredit.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> PaxSkiles was a white PG. Dished out lots of assists and shot a high % from outside. Couldn't jump, wasn't athletic. "The right way" was close to the floor, and perimiter oriented.


Haha. Touche.


If I had any Photoshop skills, I'd love to make one of those Conan O'Brien "If They Mated" pictures for Skiles and Pax.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Based on the report, it appears it was the exact opposite of Paxson's idea. So I don't know what would even prompt you to write such a thing.
> 
> Paxson wanted to keep Curry. You and I agree on this.


Going into that #3 in the east season, there were plenty of unknowns.

It was unknown if Skiles could be a legit NBA coach of modern players.

It was unknown if the Twin Towers could get their act together.

Skiles is likely *****ing to management about Curry and Chandler and all these damn young millionaires why don't they dive for the loose ball grumble grumble grumble....:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: I had to work so hard to make make the NBA and these yahoos are going to make 10 times what i did and they don't work 1/10 as hard as i did grumble grumble grumble :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: i hate big men. 

Paxson wants to instill discipline and accountability and thinks that Skiles is the man to accomplish that. He also realizes that he's inherited some nice assets and does not want to squander them. He also still does not have a great idea of what he's inherited. Skiles has one year left on his contract. A big $$$ decision has to be made on Curry/Chandler at the end of the year.

Tell Skiles to get the most out of the young players and the Curry/Chandler situation will be revisited at the end of the year. The better you make them look, the easier it is for me to get rid of them and give you something to work with that you'll be happy with. 

Paxson has a better idea of what the Towers are and what Skiles is. If you really have star level big men, its a players league, and that's more important than Scott Skiles. If you are still not happy with the towers, go forward with Skiles and deal the players you want to deal, happy that Skiles helped increase the value of the assets. 

Perhaps you can get away with signing Skiles and Curry/Chandler, if Skiles changes his tune about dealing with them one year later. Either way, you have more information from which to make your decision on. 

Just a theory. I’m sure there are some holes in it that will emerge during this discussion. : )





> But I don't understand how that can be a "knock" if he didn't think Curry was the right long term fit for this team. That is exactly what I WANT a coach to be doing and communicating to management.


Skiles was pursuing his own self-interest, not the Bulls. Paxson did a good job of aligning the incentives of Skiles and the Bulls for the 47 win season.

Skiles is happier not having to deal with guys like Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler (JR Smith and Tim Thomas as well), rather than dealing with them.

Even though the one year he decided to work with the Towers instead of battle them, the Bulls were the #3 team in the East. 

The one season transformation from “jump” to getting Curry to perform now makes sense. As does the sniping with Chandler once Skiles got his money.









> I find that very confusing. He wanted the team to dump one player that he didn't value. A player he clearly didn't consider important to the long term strength of the team.


Once again, I don't think Skiles is directly thinking of the Bulls. For one season, he was thinking of increasing his marketability, using the Bulls, even if it meant riding the towers. He didn't want to go back to sitting in Indiana and coaching high school basketball. 

Once that marketability was raised he flexed his muscles.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

:twave:


The 6ft Hurdle said:


>



:allhail:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Going into that #3 in the east season, there were plenty of unknowns.
> 
> It was unknown if Skiles could be a legit NBA coach of modern players.
> 
> ...


In spite of the fact that your dispassionate analysis of this subject is suspect, I think you have presented a reasonable hypothetical explanation of the events. IT will soon be writing his memoirs, so any historical evaluation of these events is subject to the additional data they provide.

It is worth noting that Today's Chicago Tribune features logic for ridding the White Sox of Championship starting pitchers that is earily reminiscent of the logic for many Bulls trades in the recent past :

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Going into that #3 in the east season, there were plenty of unknowns.
> 
> It was unknown if Skiles could be a legit NBA coach of modern players.
> 
> ...


So you think that all this is based off of Skiles' jealousy? That's lame.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> So you think that all this is based off of Skiles' jealousy?


Skiles has a Napoleon Complex, IMO, along with other issues.

What's your take?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> ...


Yes or no?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Skiles has a Napoleon Complex, IMO, along with other issues.
> 
> What's your take?


You're right, he's short. End of thread.

From what I see, Skiles is shorter and less athletic than any of the Bulls, so wouldn't he have contempt for the entire team in that respect?

Do you think if the Bulls had Dwight Howard there would be all this bad blood? Answer me that K4E.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Yes or no?





Electric Slim said:


> You're right, he's short. End of thread.



What's your take? 

Easy to fire off a pithy one-liner. I'd like to hear your opinion of the situation.

I'm glad one respectable poster called my "theory" reasonable. 

Your 0-content responses are always predictable.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> What's your take?



Eddy was definitely NOT Skiles type of player. Remember the "jump" comment?? I'd imagine Eddy, being a good-natured kid at heart, probably went David Lee Roth upon hearing that critique ("I might as well jump, then..") Eddy's always been a nice piece, offering low court scoring in abundance, akin to the modern day Kevin Duckworth.

But to say that Skiles was so upset that he was still there to such an extent that it hindered his contract negotiations is a bit too much. That's giving Eddy too much credit. I don't think that Skiles is THAT arrogant.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> But to say that Skiles was so upset that he was still there to such an extent that it hindered his contract negotiations is a bit too much.


Well, that's an ATS on Sam Smith. I'm assuming what he wrote is true.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, I guess what strikes me as odd about this is that 
1) It came up in contract negotiations with Skiles
2) Skiles seems to be about winning in general, and we've been one-dimensional and in general worse since trading Curry. That's not to say the trade might eventually pay off as a long-run proposition, but the roles seem reversed here. *The coach is the guy who's usually about winning now and the GM is the guy who's taking the long run view. *

Keeping Curry would certainly have given us a better team last year in the short run. Without getting into the whole debate over the 04-05 season again, it was the only time we were consistently able to go toe to toe and even win against top level teams. Not because Curry was great as an individual player, but he certainly made us a multidimensional team on offense. Defensively we were still top flight.

Now in the long-run, if we get a higher pick from the swap and Tyrus becomes the special player I think he can, we might well be better off. But it's rather odd that Paxson wasn't the one taking that line and Skiles was.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Once again, I don't think Skiles is thinking of the Bulls. For one season, he was thinking of increasing his marketability, even if it meant riding the towers. He didn't want to go back to sitting in Indiana and coaching high school basketball.
> 
> Once that marketability was raised he flexed his muscles.


when you say "riding the towers" ... does this imply what he really wanted to do was sit them, play them 10 minutes per game? who would have taken their places, from that roster?


Curry was the team's one true center, and he had to play. where's the other option? the way that team was configured, there was no question. in 2004, we were not going to become the efficient jumpshooting offense we are now... not with the current core as rookies.

Curry had to play. there was no conspiracy because he was the only center, and he was the scoring punch we had that year. you've pointed all this out before a million times.


There is no way we could sit Curry that year. He wasnt begrudgingly showcased. I'm sure plenty of nights Skiles went home thinking "man i wish i had a different center. one who jumps." but it's quite the reach to take that and formulate a conspiracy around it. 


i'm entertained by Sam Smith's columns, and i dont dislike his wishful style. but he'd be the first to tell you that he's part storyteller.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Do you think if the Bulls had Dwight Howard there would be all this bad blood? Answer me that K4E.


I think that if you practice your *** off, play tough D and obediently do what Skiles says that its all good. I don't know enough about Dwight's personality to comment. 

What do you think?

I do know that Paxson said he was not interested in bringing on a high school player right before the Dwight Howard draft anyway, so we'll never have to deal with Dwight Howard on the Bulls.


We know that Skiles had trouble with superstar level players like Jason Kidd.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> What's your take?
> 
> Easy to fire off a pithy one-liner. *(...)* I'd like to hear your opinion of the situation.
> 
> ...


I think a respnse to any of your (predictable) posts aren't worth many words, I've learned my lesson in the past.

I'll ask again, if the Bulls had Dwight Howard, who is an extremly hard-working-ridculously-athletic-yet-far-from-finished-product-African-American-near-7-footer, would there be this whole "Napoleon Complex" friction with him like you say with Curry and Chandler? And would this lead to Skiles trying to run Dwight howard out because he's too young athletic and tall?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

regarding Skiles' ideology, i'll admit i wonder sometimes. how much of what drives him is the wish to see things 'his way' ?

but honestly, if the answer to that is "all of it".....need we condemn that? what coach isnt going to have some of this urge in them? Mo Cheeks perhaps. and unless the coach is purposely committing basketball no-nos ..asking players to shoot at the wrong basket, lets say.... then how big of a problem can this become?


The GMs job is to match coach ideology with a talented, productive group of players. Not easy, perhaps it's why Parcells likes "buying the groceries" himself. Point stands though: coaches will have ideologies..... but just because they're implementing them doesnt mean they're putting the team second.


Skiles believed a Curryless team could be better. again, we are - he was right. we're better on offense and defense, and got some valuable draft picks to boot. maybe he should buy the groceries!


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

Eddy Curry has 38 rebounds in three games. I never thought that I'd see the day.

Before the season started, I said on here that he'd be good for 10 to 15 games with 10+ rebounds, and he already has 6. Wow!

He was born to play for the Knicks, though. He is both lazy and stupid, which is a terribly sad combination. That will never change, y'all. 

If you support him, chances are that you don't know your basketball too well.

Curry Line Update:

68 Turnovers
31 Assists, Steals, and Blocks


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I think a respnse to any of your (predictable) posts aren't worth many words, I've learned my lesson in the past.



And I feel the same about yours.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think that if you practice your *** off, play tough D and obediently do what Skiles says that its all good. I don't enough about Dwight's personality to comment.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> *I do know that Paxson said he was not interested in bringing on a high school player right before the Dwight Howard draft anyway*, so we'll never have to deal with Dwight Howard on the Bulls.


Oh really? That's good enough for me, K4E. We all know that GM's are honest to the press about who they're interested in prior to the draft. Remember all the times when Pax was asked about Wade, and he kept on replying "Well don't forget about that Hinrich kid..." pfft



> We know that Skiles had trouble with superstar level players like Jason Kidd.


Due to his Napoleon Complex, right?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Do you think if the Bulls had Dwight Howard there would be all this bad blood? Answer me that K4E.


That's sort of a silly way to look at things. Dwight Howard would make anyone's job a hell of a lot easier. Most coaches, like most leaders in other situations don't have perfect employees. They have to make do with imperfect people with serious flaws in their abilities and personalities.

A guy who can only lead perfect followers and teach perfect pupils isn't much of a leader or a teacher. I like Skiles in general, but I still have these concerns about him.

Personality wise I don't think he'd have a problem with Howard, but I do wonder what we'd get out of a sometimes (reportedly) high maintenance guy like Amare Stoudemire.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> That's sort of a silly way to look at things. Dwight Howard would make anyone's job a hell of a lot easier. Most coaches, like most leaders in other situations don't have perfect employees. They have to make do with imperfect people with serious flaws in their abilities and personalities.
> 
> A guy who can only lead perfect followers and teach perfect pupils isn't much of a leader or a teacher. I like Skiles in general, but I still have these concerns about him.
> 
> Personality wise I don't think he'd have a problem with Howard, but I do wonder what we'd get out of a sometimes (reportedly) high maintenance guy like Amare Stoudemire.


So (and I'm still directing this towards K4E) Skiles would be fine with Dwight Howard's:

1. Not yet reaching his full potential
2. Being a young college-skipper
3. Being tall
4. Being athletic
5. Being black

If no, then these reasons only apply to Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler, right?


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Could be bad news for Ben Gordon fans.
> 
> At least Skiles contract is not up the summer of the Ben Gordan resigning.
> 
> It might be time for bringing on the B to C guy at that point anyway.


It wasn't up the year Curry was to resign either. He was commmited to playing out the last year of his contract and leaving, or so he says.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> So (and I'm still directing this towards K4E) Skiles would be fine with Dwight Howard's:
> 
> 1. Not yet reaching his full potential
> 2. Being a young college-skipper
> ...


Where are they now? 'nough said.​


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Where are they now? 'nough said.​


You aren't anwering my question. I'm asking if Dwight Howard was on the Bulls, would Skiles have problems with the 5 things i listed and try to run him out?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> You aren't anwering my question. I'm asking if Dwight Howard was on the Bulls, would Skiles have problems with the 5 things i listed and try to run him out?


I haven't seen that Skiles knows what to do with a big man. The other two were run out of town, and I have no reason to think Howard would have been treated any different. PaxSkiles do seem to like their college players, and I don't recall which winning college program Howard was in 

The main differences, as near as I can tell, between Howard and Chandler or Curry is that Howard didn't play for the bulls, his team played him because they had nothing better to do with their losing seasons, Skiles didn't coach him, and he basically didn't have another guy his age and hype level at the same position to compete with for playing time.​


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I haven't seen that Skiles knows what to do with a big man. The other two were run out of town, and I have no reason to think Howard would have been treated any different. PaxSkiles do seem to like their college players, and I don't recall which winning college program Howard was in
> 
> The main differences, as near as I can tell, between Howard and Chandler or Curry is that Howard didn't play for the bulls, his team played him because they had nothing better to do with their losing seasons, Skiles didn't coach him, and he basically didn't have another guy his age and hype level at the same position to compete with for playing time.​


The difference between Howard, Chandler and Curry is that in year three Dwight Howard is a way, way better player than either of those guys are in year five. The idea that Skiles didn't play Chandler and Curry is totally bizarre. He played both plenty.

For all the flack Skiles gets for not developing bigs, here are a couple of pretty hard-to-argue-with truths:

1) Eddy Curry had his best season as a pro under Scott Skiles.

2) Tyson Chandler had his best season as a pro under Scott Skiles.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Y'all throwing the baby out with the bathwater 

If Eddy doesn't have the heart issue ..Bulls would have given him his contract extension .

Skiles was signed before this went down 

If DNA gate hadn't gone down ( sorry about the gate thing ) Eddy would be playing for Scott Skiles last season 

Ben Wallace maybe still would have been pursued and Tyson probably would have still been dealt and everything would have been as it should ..maybe 

But to suggest that Skiles had a pot to piss in re this type of influence of John boy Paxson ..well anyone that thinks this needs to remove their head from their arse


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Plus - the Knicks are 2 and 5 in the last 2 weeks when Eddy has been 24 and 9 

Nice numbers for the lad but I couldn't give a square root about his numbers 

Fifth worst record in the league -just keep losing baby 

I'm just pissed we couldn't wrangle David Lee instead of Georgetown Fatz


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I'm just pissed we couldn't wrangle David Lee instead of Georgetown Fatz


I may be wrong, but I thought I remembered reading the protection on the 06 pick was dropped and the 07 pick swap was included because IT didn't want to give us Lee. 

If my memory serves me correctly, not getting Lee may turn out to be some serious "found money," and Sweets would still be here.

Now I'm going to go search to see if I can find that report.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

This poster at insidehoops disagrees with me:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6050



> i do not think Paxson is done making moves. I think he is still looking for a post-player. Probably not KG or Elton Brand type guys since they are not available but someone who we could give the ball to early in the first and throughout the game without having to get rid of our core players. He is probably looking at some underrated post-players like this one http://youtube.com/watch?v=A9w5j9GmkLI.
> 
> I dont know about you but i really do not think Paxson and Skiles were that impressed with Michael Sweetney. If anyone can remember Michael Sweetney was not the original player Paxson wanted to get in the Eddy Curry trade. He wanted Trevor Ariza and David Lee. I also heard that if the picks were protected he would not have done the deal which to me means he cared more about getting a pick over a post-player in return at that time. Also in an interview with Skiles, Skiles was asked about playing Michael Sweetney when Darius Songaila got hurt. Skiles said,''Well i guess we will just give Michael Sweetney a 2nd chance.'' To me he was going to be traded if Darius Songaila was not hurt. Also 15 or less games is not going to change a general managers or coaches mind about a player when they were on the team since October.
> 
> ...


Re-reading what he said seems to make sense and fit my recollection of events (although I was fuzzy in the details). I'll keep searching for a more official story.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I've now read in multiple places that Paxson wanted Ariza, Lee, and the picks.

I still thought I remembered something changing with the pick status when IT wouldn't give up Lee, but it may just be remembering that the no protection was the dealbreaker.

So yes, it does sound like it was Sweets vs. Lee.


----------

