# How Did It Happen?



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

The Bulls traded last season's leading scorer for a bunch of ending contracts. They spent most of their MLE money on a rookie. Their current rotation has four rookies playing prominent roles with two of them as starters.

After 38 games last season the Bulls were 12-26. This season they're 19-19.

Unbelievable. How does something like this happen? How do you survive the loss of your leading scorer, replacing him with a bunch of castoffs, fail to add a productive veteran through free agency, insert four rookies, a second year player and two 22 year olds into your rotation...and end up with a significantly better record at this point of the season (19-19) than the 03/04 team (12-26) and the 02/03 team (14-24), and the 01/02 team (8-30), and the 00/01 team (6-32), and the 99/00 team (8-30)?????

A lot of players, including some pretty good ones, have come and gone during that time. There have been three different head coaches and two different GM's.

What's been the difference? It hasn't been roster stability. This year's 15 man roster is comprised of 10 new players.

There's a lot going on here. And there's no single, straightforward answer to the question this thread poses. Lets hear it, folks. List what is in your opinion, the two or three biggest reasons why this season is so much different from every previous season that followed our last championship in '98.

This ought to be interesting.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Changed the culture. Right attitude, right players, right message, right way.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> What's been the difference?


1. A *huge* emphasis on defense, in terms of instruction and effort. It's the quickest, best way to turn a team around. Credit goes to the coach for teaching, the GM for choosing defensive-minded, talented players, and the players for playing well.

Combined with

2. A closer on offense: Ben Gordon, and occasionally others fill in. He can consistently get off his own shot and was the sole catalyst for about 5-8 wins. That's not to say he's a great player; he doesn't win games by himself in terms of playing huge minutes and building big leads. If you added him to another team, like Atlanta or Boston, he wouldn't make them 5-8 wins better like with us. However, he fills a huge role with us. The defense keeps it close and he can carry us for good stretches. Hinrich or Deng can play this role and do decently but can't do it like Ben. He's simply amazing. 

You can break it down and explain it a million ways, but Defense is definitely number one.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Yeah you cant just look at stats. Some teams just play well together. Chemisty is hugely important but you cant always gauge it.

Like take my old highschool team for instance. When we would walk into a gym the other teams would laugh. We were just 15 under 6 foot white kids. Our tallest player was like 6'2. The only thing we had in our favor is that we grew up together playing organized basketball for the school since we were little kids. We knew eachother so well and we could shoot lights out. We all played Rec ball together, school ball together, PE together, and pick up together. We were only a size B school and one 6A school from Georgia said they didnt even wanna warm up against us and they all just sat there and talked. They were huge to, all of them tall and long and athletic. We blew them out by 20. Chemistry is huge...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)




----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)




----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Changed the culture. Right attitude, right players, right message, right way.


What he said...props to Pax. The first thing he talked about was culture and defense.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

How Did It Happen?


1.Nocioni. Player like Nocioni, brings a lot of toughness to the team. Pacers without Artest- an average team- 20%

2.Kirk- 20%

3.Departure of Jamal and ERob- 15%

4.EC and TC contract year- 15%

5.Finally we have a decent SF-Deng- 15%

6.AD -15%


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Culture change. 

Skiles offense. Took the team a while to adjust to each other. The ball moves well. Everyone passes the ball including (dare I say it?) Eddy Curry. 

Skiles again. Defense and focus. 

Confidence yet, not letting the team think too much themselves. Skiles, Pippen and AD needs credit for that.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I think it's pretty simple. We have smarter, harder working players on the team. Skiles has had time to implement his system. The talent level is very slightly better, and I don't think we gained any experience.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

1. No gaping holes on the roster filled with NBDL guys. Just the fact that real players are out there, and they can play both ways helps them. Deng, especially, is a huge help in this regard. Last year Dupree, Lint, and Chris Jefferies were an ugodly ugly combination at the 3. Even as rookies Deng and Nocioni are light years ahead of them. Plus, it gives us more balance. Last year we had exactly 3 guys who opposing defenses had to account for. Curry, Crawford, and Hinrich. This year Deng makes 4 (with Gordon replacing Crawford), and Pike (much to my surprise) and Harrington are probably more effective than Gill and Fizer were last year as well.

2. Kirk has improved significantly. I think it's underestimated how much he's improved because his FG% is only starting to catch up after the crummy start. This month He's also being asked to do a lot more on defense and he's doing it.

3. Gordon is a damn near unstoppable scorer when he gets hot, in a way that pretty much no other player we've had since MJ and Pip has.

4. Curry is the thin version who dunks the ball when he's close to the basket, and who actually looks like he wants to play basketball most of the time (since the winning started, anyway)

5. Chandler is the healthy version who doesn't get enough offensive opportunity for my taste, but he's healthy, playing very good D, and contributing on offense when given the opportunity.

Those are all significant improvements from last year's team.

So the next question is why did we start out so sucky. Well, because:

1. Kirk started out sucky, in part because the rule enforcement changes screwed up the way he's always played.

2. Gordon started out sucky, because he's a 6'3" guy trying to play SG in the NBA. It's still taking time to adjust and we should be thankful he can still get his shot off.

3. Curry and Chandler together- still a cause for concern. I don't know what the deal is there.

4. Massive confusions and discontinuity over who could do what.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

One word (SKILES). Pasxon has made it clear he is the coach and if you want to play it is skiles way. The players have now signed on and the team is slowing taking on the skiles presona of gritty defensive and team play on offensive.

david


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Culture change is right. Everyone is willing to sacrafice, work hard and play as a team. There are some talented players in this league who aren't willing to sacrafice or play as a team. I don't think we have any of those on our roster anymore. The heavy emphasis on defense is right too, but that only works because of the concepts above being bought into.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Coach Skiles










and an offseason implementing his system

and players who have the willingness and ability to step up to his challenge of team ball, toughness and accountability


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

1.) Big infusion of young, fairly productive talent. Deng, Gordon, Chapu, Duhon

2.) The towers. Curry becoming a near all-star center. Chandler being a monster rebounder and help defender... and developing a nice little outside shot.

3.) Hinrich improving and leading.

4.) Team playing kick-butt, hustle style defense.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Skiles implementing a system and (most importantly) the players all buying into it. As it stands, the coaching has improved and so have the players.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McGraw says a lot of it is Bigs.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38376102



> [With Chandler and Curry] combined with Antonio Davis and Othella Harrington, the Bulls are simply beating teams up inside. Curry and Chandler have been huge assets during the 15-4 run, and anyone who thinks the Bulls should trade either player before next season is out of his or her mind.
> 
> The Bulls instantly would become the Knicks or the Celtics or any number of teams that dress high-scoring perimeter players but have trouble coping with the Bulls' height.


:yes:


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

STEROIDS.


Which I credit to Nocioni.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

This has been alluded to, but not said explicitly yet: the much, much improved overall defense of Curry and Chandler. In previous seasons, teams with a good offensive scheme could basically reduce the Bulls' defense to a layup line. Even with some decent perimeter defenders on the squad, like Artest, Hassell, and Kirk last year, teams could just make a few quick passes and get an open look or a dunk.

Now, all of the perimeter defenders are playing hard and the team seems to grasp, to a man, the concept of funnelling guys right to a waiting big man if they can't keep them in front. And Curry and Chandler at times look like Duncan and Robinson used to look. They block shots, lay a body on someone, and make teams think twice about driving to the basket. And they've learned how to time their rotations so that they don't automatically pick up fouls when they try to contest a shot. Curry used to completely fail to make these rotations, and Chandler just didn't seem to know what was going on, even though his effort was always good.

I give Curry credit for learning to take some pride in his defense, Chandler credit for growing more and more disciplined in his play, and Skiles credit for getting them, and the entire team, ready to play the kind of defense they're playing right now.

edit: johnston beat me to it.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Veteran leadership. You have guys like AD, Othella, Adrian Griffin, and Pike leading by example. When they don't get playing time, they don't complain. They just keep on doing their job till Skiles calls on them. 

It's providing a great example for the young guys we have on this team.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> Veteran leadership. You have guys like AD, Othella, Adrian Griffin, and Pike leading by example. When they don't get playing time, they don't complain. They just keep on doing their job till Skiles calls on them.
> 
> It's providing a great example for the young guys we have on this team.


thats true, and the right mix of youngs who have the ability to play and are willing to listen. They started this with Gill, AD and Pippen etc, and have gotten better and better with this philosophy. Deng said on NBA TV that the Vets have done a great job keeping the youngs focused on consistency.

I don't necesarily think Eddy and Tyson have improved all that much myself. Tyson said the the reason is that he and Eddy finally have the right mix players around them to enhance what they can do. I wish i could find that quote, but thats almost what he said word for word.............PLus these two have accepted that right now, they are role players primarily. Good prominent ones, but role players for the most part

heres some other things the players and coaches have said as to why they are winning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6850671


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

#1 reason IMO is that basketball is a game of percentages. The Bulls simply dominate the percentages, attacking the paint/low-post early and often, while defending the paint/low-post ferociously. Opponents are constantly forced into jumpshots (i.e. low percentage scoring) while the Bulls get the better looks near the basket (i.e. high percentage scoring). Considering that we have 4 good health big men, it's no wonder there's improvement. I don't think the Bulls have had this kind of big man depth in franchise history. It might explain why they just set the franchise record for opponents held under 100 pts.

#2 reason is Skiles....he's done something that his predecessors couldn't do, and that's get his players to buy into his system. 

#3 reason is having the right guys who can step up when the game is on the line, particularly Gordon, Hinrich, and Chandler. We haven't seen this many players with this particular quality since the dynasty era.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I think two posters above got it right:

All the players buying into Skiles system (does this mean it really isn't Skiles...but that _any_ competent coach could have success with this group?)

The improved defense of the bigs.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

In my view, it started with Paxson deciding to try to do something silly, namely putting together a NBA team that would allow itself to be coached. A team made up of NBA players of varying talent levels who would buy into the revolutionary concept of caring more about the team's success than whether they get their fair share of face time on Sportscenter's highlight reel.

When Paxson began hinting at this strategy, I confess that I thought he was being naive. I mean, it's just not the way the NBA works. The NBA has been a players' league, not a coach's league, for decades.

Despite the fact that the Bulls are as hot as any team in the NBA, their leading scorer ranks #40 in the league. Of the other major individual statistical categories, the best the Bulls can do is Hinrich's #7 in assists.

The Bulls have become the Princeton of the NBA. They're not all that talented (in the traditional NBA sense), but they just play good basketball harder than other teams.

They're showing what is possible when the GM, coaching staff and players all pull together on the rope as hard as they can and in the same direction.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The discrete reasons are countless. 

But I think the overriding concept is accountability. The extraction of the unwanted in "losing trades" and the types of players brought in all starts with Paxson's desire to make the players accountable for their actions. Something that had been sorely lacking under Krause (who I admire, but it was a problem).

Everything flows from that. The hiring of Skiles. The defense. The conditioning. The "buying in" to Skiles' systems. The fighting attitude surviving an 0-9 franchise-worst start. 

The list of positives that flow from accountability is endless. 

Individually, nods have to be given to almost every player on the team. They have either been surprisingly solid veterans, poised-beyond-their-experience-rookies, or young "vets" stepping up their game through hard work and dedication. No one who plays meaningful minutes can be left out of the praise.

If you break it all down, its really a magical confluence of events and people.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> They're showing what is possible when the GM, coaching staff and players all pull together on the rope as hard as they can and in the same direction.


Very well said.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chris Duhon actually plays defense. We've not had a PG that played defense in years. JWill and Crawford were as bad a twosome at guard, on defense, as you can put on the floor.

AD is having the best year he could possibly have. 

Indy and Detroit imploded due to the fight. Detroit is the defending NBA champs. Do they look like it? Indy, without Artest and with all the suspension time they gave up is barely a .500 team (20-19).

The East is utterly terrible, and we've played a lot of games against these Eastern teams. Our wins against West Coast teams the past two months are:

Golden State (12-29)
Utah (12-28)
New Orleans (7-33)
Portland (15-24)
Minnesota (21-19)

When we've played against actually good teams, here's how we've faired the past two months:

24 point loss to Miami (at home)
7 point loss to Washington (road)
16 point loss to San Antonio (home)
1 point loss to Dallas (home)

We've lost to some other bad teams, too:

Philly (18-21) by 5 at home
Milwaukee (15-24) by 7 on the road
New Jersey (15-25) by 4 at home
Boston (18-22) by 9 on the road

So how did it happen?

1) The league is terrible and we faced mostly the most terrible of the teams.
2) Teams that should have beaten us are socked with injuries or suspensions.
3) Our "impressive" wins are against Cleveland and Orlando (the only two not within 1 game/loss of .500).
4) We're healthy.

The good news is that winning is contageous... There's a certain amount of swagger we can take into games against actually tough teams and maybe have a chance to win, where we might have just mailed it in during those games in past years.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> So how did it happen?
> 
> ...


So is the league worse than it was last year in your estimation?

Back then, we were losing to teams that were good, bad, and mediocre alike. Now we seem to be beating the bad and mediocre pretty consistently and holding our own against the good ones.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> So how did it happen?
> ...


So basically you're saying the Bulls are winning because their competition is terrible? You must've been listening to Legler too much on ESPN. The last time the Bulls lost a game by a large margin (Miami I think) was before the Bulls had really established an identity. I'd argue that it was still too early in the season to properly judge a team with 4 rookies, a 2nd year man, and two 22-year old big men all playing significant roles. We're nearly at the halfway point in the season, and the Bulls now have an identity as a team with strong defense and great chemistry. Did nobody listen to me when I said the Bulls would play their best basketball in the 2nd half of the season? Obviously the schedule gets tougher as they progress through February, but if anything, this challenge will show us how far these Bulls have come in such a short time span. I for one am looking forward to the challenge. 

Does it mean nothing that the Bulls have twice defeated the defending champs on their own home court? The Pistons are NOT a depleted team right now either. They've been playing very well lately and they have a full roster, most of which are carry-overs from last season. The Bulls demolished 2 of the best teams in the East (Cleveland & Orlando). They won a home-and-home against a team that was supposed to be so much better than them. They came ever so close to sweeping the Kobe-led Lakers this season. It's time to give the team some props.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> So is the league worse than it was last year in your estimation?
> ...


The league is worse. Though statistically, it can be no worse nor no better (the league is always .500 as a whole at the end of the season, no?). I say worse because:
Indiana .744 -> .513
New Jersey .573 -> .375
Minnesota .707 -> .525
Lakers .683 -> .579
Detroit .659 -> .575

Those should be championship contenders.

Others:
Utah .512 -> .333
Golden State .451 -> .293
Milwaukee .500 -> .385
Portland .500 -> .385
Denver .524 -> .425
New Orleans .500 -> .175

Since the league must be .500, some teams have to pick up the slack.

As good as the Bulls have seemed at this point, there's better success stories:
Phoenix .354 -> .762
Washington .305 -> .615
Orlando .256 -> .564
Seattle .451 -> .718

(Bulls .280 -> .500)


See the attachment for a simple analysis of our recent schedule (Dec/Jan). Basically, the teams that beat us have a combined .565 win%. The teams we beat have a combined .446 win%. Of those wins, we beat teams with a .500 win % (or better) 8 times, and worse than .500 10 times. Worse than .400 6 times.

We're 1-4 against teams at .600 or better.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> The league is worse. Though statistically, it can be no worse nor no better (the league is always .500 as a whole at the end of the season, no?). I say worse because:
> Indiana .744 -> .513
> ...


Right, but that's just the results. We'd see the same changes regarless of whether the change were wholly due to previously bad teams improving or previously good teams falling apart.



> As good as the Bulls have seemed at this point, there's better success stories:
> Phoenix .354 -> .762
> Washington .305 -> .615
> Orlando .256 -> .564
> ...


Sure, but the question was why are the Bulls more successful.



> See the attachment for a simple analysis of our recent schedule (Dec/Jan). Basically, the teams that beat us have a combined .565 win%. The teams we beat have a combined .446 win%. Of those wins, we beat teams with a .500 win % (or better) 8 times, and worse than .500 10 times. Worse than .400 6 times.
> 
> We're 1-4 against teams at .600 or better.


OK, maybe I'm being dense, but this appears to confirm what I said before. We're beating the bad teams, playing pretty well against the OK teams, and holding our own against the good ones (yes, we're only 1-4, but it's also worth noting that the margin of loss seems smaller).

What it doesn't tell me is why we're winning more.

Maybe a different approach to the question would help- what would last year's team, circa December-January do if it had played against the opposition this year's team played.

If the two teams' records would be different, why?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DC --

The injury to Chandler surely hurt us last year. At the time he went down, he was considered our best player and an all-star candidate by those of us who like kool-aid.

When good teams fall apart, what happens to the bad ones? Since the league has to finish at .500, the bad ones have to win more, obviously. Here's the most simplistic example to illustrate this:

Two team league:
Team A wins 100% of its games
Team B loses 100% of its games

Next season, Team A falls apart, wins only 50% of its games. What happens to Team B's record?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> DC --
> 
> The injury to Chandler surely hurt us last year. At the time he went down, he was considered our best player and an all-star candidate by those of us who like kool-aid.
> ...


It gets better, but that doesn't mean the only explanation for the change is that Team A fell apart.

In reality the Win and Loss are conclusions from a comparison process. My point is that it's not necessarily because Team A fell apart. Think of it as two glasses of water.

In Year 1, Team A's glass is fuller than Team B's.

In Year 2, There are three possibilities.

* Team A falls apart, and water is spilled from their glass until there is an equal amount to Team B's.

* Team B's glass gets fuller, to the point of equality with Team A.

* Team A loses some, Team B gets some, and they end up at equality.

That is, Team A could remain, in some objective sense, "just as good" as it was last year, but because Team B improved, its record is worse.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> It gets better, but that doesn't mean the only explanation for the change is that Team A fell apart.
> ...


Right, but in this case, Team A has guys named Kobe, Garnett, Kidd, Jermaine O'Neal, and Team A is the defending champs (that'd be the Lakers, Minny, New Jersey, Indy, and Detroit, all teams I pointed out have declined).

Who exactly did Team B get to compete with these guys that you think makes them "better" (the glass analogy).


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

Some of you are missing the point. Every team is different, what makes this Bulls team so impressive is that we are playing with 4 ROOKIES on our team who contributes on a daily basis. We don't even have a player of all-star calibur on our team yet.

Who seriously thought that with a lineup of 

Duhon, Hinrich, Deng, Davis, and Curry we would be the second-best team in the East after our 0-9 start.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Right, but in this case, Team A has guys named Kobe, Garnett, Kidd, Jermaine O'Neal, and Team A is the defending champs (that'd be the Lakers, Minny, New Jersey, Indy, and Detroit, all teams I pointed out have declined).
> ...


I thought my first post in the thread pointed out why I think the Bulls are better.

* Better defense, conditioning, and health from our frontcourt (mostly Tyson and Eddy).
* Internal improvement from Hinrich.
* Better game closing ability.
* More options on the floor at once, both offensively and defensively.

Those facts, not the last one the least, make it harder for other teams to beat us. The first two make individual matchups relatively better for us. The second two make it harder for other teams to stop our strengths and exploit our weaknesses.

In short, those are all Team B getting better.

I don't dispute that in some cases Team A got worse too. Not at all. But I do see tangible improvements to be seen in our team, irrespective of how it stacks up against anyone else.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz, your arguments smack of desperation. The Bulls are rapidly improving and rather than give Skiles or Paxson any credit, you search for any other possible explanation for their success, including a massive decline in the quality of NBA play. Clearly, that is a more reasonable explanation for the Bulls' success than anything that Skiles or Paxson might have done. Is it _that_ hard to admit that as right as you were last year, you are just as dead wrong this year?

It is not like you were the only one. Heck, I have been dead wrong about a lot of things with the Bulls. But I find it incredible the lengths to which you are willing to go in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that you were wrong about the Bulls this year.


----------



## TheWindyCityBallers (May 19, 2003)

Each and every player deserves some credit, but this turnaround would have never happened without Coach Skiles.....


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> DaBullz, your arguments smack of desperation. The Bulls are rapidly improving and rather than give Skiles or Paxson any credit, you search for any other possible explanation for their success, including a massive decline in the quality of NBA play. Clearly, that is a more reasonable explanation for the Bulls' success than anything that Skiles or Paxson might have done. Is it _that_ hard to admit that as right as you were last year, you are just as dead wrong this year?
> 
> It is not like you were the only one. Heck, I have been dead wrong about a lot of things with the Bulls. But I find it incredible the lengths to which you are willing to go in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that you were wrong about the Bulls this year.


Smack...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought my first post in the thread pointed out why I think the Bulls are better.
> ...



:clap: 

Exactamundo. Perhaps I am just naive, but it seems more likely to me that the Bulls have improved as opposed to every other good basketball player/team immediately deciding to suck. Have we played some bad teams? Sure. Is that our fault? No. We don't control the schedule. In the past, we lost to the bad teams. Many of our losses to me occurred before the miraculous turnaround and I don't really view this Bulls team as being the same team right now. The test will come when our schedule gets tougher. Hopefully the inspired play continues.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> DaBullz, your arguments smack of desperation. The Bulls are rapidly improving and rather than give Skiles or Paxson any credit, you search for any other possible explanation for their success, including a massive decline in the quality of NBA play. Clearly, that is a more reasonable explanation for the Bulls' success than anything that Skiles or Paxson might have done. Is it _that_ hard to admit that as right as you were last year, you are just as dead wrong this year?
> 
> It is not like you were the only one. Heck, I have been dead wrong about a lot of things with the Bulls. But I find it incredible the lengths to which you are willing to go in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that you were wrong about the Bulls this year.


You're right, Dan.

The Bulls drafted players better than Kobe, Garnett and the others I listed, and Skiles is getting the most out of them.

You convinced me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right, Dan.
> ...


Are they selling big foam "DaBulls is right about PaxSkiles" hands at the United Center?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

It happened because everyone started playing defense, basically.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> See the attachment for a simple analysis of our recent schedule (Dec/Jan). Basically, the teams that beat us have a combined .565 win%. The teams we beat have a combined .446 win%. Of those wins, we beat teams with a .500 win % (or better) 8 times, and worse than .500 10 times. Worse than .400 6 times.
> 
> We're 1-4 against teams at .600 or better.


It occurred to me that our actual schedule is at odds with the Team A/B analysis.

I'd have to look to see who played each night, but most of the 18 victories came against teams that don't obviously qualify as worse teams under the criteria you set forth.

We beat the Lakers, Pistons (twice), TWolves, Pacers, Bucks, and Hornets, and yes, they've all suffered declines from last year (although the Lakers and TWolves seem due to internal factors, not injuries).

So sure, I'll grant that their declines made things easier, but I also remember plenty of games we lost last year while playing to teams that had their star players out with injuries. Last year we still lost those kinds of games because we, ourselves, weren't playing with a real NBA roster.

We beat the Cavs and Magic, who are clearly improved.

The rest of our wins came against the Grizzlies, Sixers, Celtics, Knicks (twice), Blazers, Jazz, Warriors, and Hawks, who don't appear to have really obviously differences from last year.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right, Dan.
> ...


I don't understand. How can you make the argument that the Bulls have improved because the top teams have declined and also make the argument that the Bulls have improved because they haven't played/beaten the top teams?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> It occurred to me that our actual schedule is at odds with the Team A/B analysis.
> ...


Ah, Mike, I see you beat me to this point.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> DaBullz, your arguments smack of desperation. The Bulls are rapidly improving and rather than give Skiles or Paxson any credit, you search for any other possible explanation for their success, including a massive decline in the quality of NBA play. Clearly, that is a more reasonable explanation for the Bulls' success than anything that Skiles or Paxson might have done. Is it _that_ hard to admit that as right as you were last year, you are just as dead wrong this year?
> 
> It is not like you were the only one. Heck, I have been dead wrong about a lot of things with the Bulls. But I find it incredible the lengths to which you are willing to go in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that you were wrong about the Bulls this year.





> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Are they selling big foam "DaBulls is right about PaxSkiles" hands at the United Center?


Now there's some constructive criticism if I've ever seen it


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz's contrarian viewpoint has never been more important to this board than it is now. 

Yes, Paxson has put his stamp on the team. Skiles is using the talent appropriately. The players, both old and familiar, young and new, are responding and achieving. 

But this could be the shortest-lived recovery in NBA history. At the end of the rainbow sits the Chairman, and we can't count on this team being kept together until the ink is dry on Curry and Chandler's new contracts. 

Put another way--there is no doubt in my mind that the man who bitterly spat the words "I'll regret this someday" after signing Michael Jordan to a $30 million contract is looking at the Bulls with much the same hypercritical eye that DaBullz is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of our wins came against the Grizzlies, Sixers, Celtics, Knicks (twice), Blazers, Jazz, Warriors, and Hawks, who don't appear to have really obviously differences from last year.


Memphis .610 -> .548
Sixers .402 -> .462
Celtics .439 -> .450
Knicks .476 -> .425
Blazers .500 -> .385
Jazz .512 -> .333
Warriors .451 -> .293
Hawks .341 -> .211

What do all these teams have in common (other than 76ers and Celtics)?

And who, besides the Bulls, are beating these teams?


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

Organizations that are consistent winners clearly outline a philosophy and execute to it....

The Bulls have finally done that...

1) Pax wanted a tougher team and he went and got personnel that were gutsy...not the most talented necessarily

2) Pax hired a teacher / perfectionist for this team. They needed X/Os type coach with a perfectionist attitude

3) He then dumped the ones that would not fit the philosophy...however talented they were

Kudos to Pax as it sent a strong message to the team! 

4) Skiles showed unwavering commitment to his philosophy(play good team defense, practice commitment)...even when this team was in the toilet last year! Sent another message to this team.

5) They LUCKED out in personnel.....Hinrich is more than a gutsy player (even Pax admitted that he was a bit surprised by his talent level). Duhon has been the second coming of Mark Jackson...pass first guard who has court savvy. Deng has more polish than Pax expected....

Mix in the talent/growth of Eddy / Chandler with rock solid draft picks and veteran bench who have all been aligned to THE Bulls philosophy. Voila....wait wait...throw in a good measure of luck and you got success somewhat....

The Bulls really need an above .500 February to show that they are a legit team....on the road agaist some elite teams.

Dealing with adversity is going to be this team's growth in the next few weeks and can get them to the next level of play....


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> But this could be the shortest-lived recovery in NBA history. At the end of the rainbow sits the Chairman, and we can't count on this team being kept together until the ink is dry on Curry and Chandler's new contracts.
> ...


I'm hoping Reinsdorf learns his lesson from some of his PR gaffs that have pretty much ruined his White Sox franchise. He took a team that was drawing very well in the early 90's and on it's way to being a consistent contender and ended up alienating an entire fan base, turning it into a small market team. But that's a whole different issue.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> DaBullz's contrarian viewpoint has never been more important to this board than it is now.
> 
> Yes, Paxson has put his stamp on the team. Skiles is using the talent appropriately. The players, both old and familiar, young and new, are responding and achieving.
> ...


You are right, Scott. The Chairman is the man to watch. This is a good team, but its not yet a great team. And it is not too late for this good team to crumble with a wrong change or two.

I believe that Jerry, with the guidance of PaxSkiles, will do the right thing in terms of keeping this team together and making changes that are appropriate to continue improvement.

Why?

Because Reinsdorf is not an idiot, and neither are his less visible, but in the end equally or more important co-owners.

They know the cash cow they've enjoyed post-MJ can't last forever. The Thick or Thin windfall reached an end. Its time to take the team seriously again, to keep butts in the seats, generate advertising revenue and get the t-shirt sales going again.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm hoping Reinsdorf learns his lesson from some of his PR gaffs that have pretty much ruined his *White Sox* franchise. He took a team that was drawing very well in the early 90's and on it's way to being a consistent contender and ended up alienating an entire fan base, turning it into a small market team. But that's a whole different issue.


Back in the day, there was a team by that name that played down around 35th and Shields.

Are they still around?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Memphis .610 -> .548
> ...


They lost to us.

The answer you were looking for, I guess, was that they all have worse records than last time, but that, again, doesn't speak to whether the team itself is stronger or weaker than last year or they simply face stiffer competition... it simply returns to the original truism... someone has to win and someone has to lose. It doesn't say anything about why.

To put it yet another way, does the greater winning of other teams reflect their improvement or other teams' decline? Take the Lakers, for example. If you argue the Lakers are worse by X amount because they lost Shaq, then the Heat should be about X better, should they not?

It's unlikely to be exactly the same X in both because of how the respective teams fit together , but the basic point is pretty obvious. Several of the team "cave ins" don't reflect what in economics we'd call losses of overall basketball skill (the way, say, an injury would) they just reflect transfers from one team to another.

Vs. last year, you've got several things going on:
Losses: Players who left the league, or miss games due to injury or suspension
Gains: Players who enter the league, or return from injuries that kept them sidelined last year. It's worth noting the injury bug works the other way too- if we're worse off because Artest and Jason Kidd are missing time, we're better off because Grant Hill, Chris Webber, Gil Arenas and Allen Iverson are on the court.
Transfers: Shaq goes to the Heat and they get better. The Lakers get worse. Things generally offset.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> They lost to us.
> ...


You're right on both counts. It's the league as a whole that's beating these teams. It's also true that these teams as an agreggate show an decline. Remember, these teams that show such a decline are the ones we're beating.



> To put it yet another way, does the greater winning of other teams reflect their improvement or other teams' decline? Take the Lakers, for example. If you argue the Lakers are worse by X amount because they lost Shaq, then the Heat should be about X better, should they not?
> 
> It's unlikely to be exactly the same X in both because of how the respective teams fit together , but the basic point is pretty obvious. Several of the team "cave ins" don't reflect what in economics we'd call losses of overall basketball skill (the way, say, an injury would) they just reflect transfers from one team to another.


You make a case about 1 or 2 teams. You lose sight of the aggregate. The aggregate accounts for the Lakers/Heat trade and every other one.



> Vs. last year, you've got several things going on:
> Losses: Players who left the league, or miss games due to injury or suspension
> Gains: Players who enter the league, or return from injuries that kept them sidelined last year. It's worth noting the injury bug works the other way too- if we're worse off because Artest and Jason Kidd are missing time, we're better off because Grant Hill, Chris Webber, Gil Arenas and Allen Iverson are on the court.
> Transfers: Shaq goes to the Heat and they get better. The Lakers get worse. Things generally offset.


Of course the Bulls improved, too. I made this point in some Crawford vs. Ben Gordon thread (who's better, Crawford+Shirley+Johnson+DuPree or Gordon+Nocioni+Deng+Chandler?).

I think I pointed to three reasons I think the Bulls are better, aside from the league being worse:
1) Duhon is far better than anyone realized (and he plays defense)
2) AD is having the best year he possibly could at this point
3) Winning is contagious - we have more confidence and that helps us stay in more games.

For those who think it's all Paxson's doing, I cannot ignore the evidence that we almost:
1) Had Al Harrington instead of Deng
2) Had Duhon playing in Europe
3) Traded Curry for Sweetney
I think that was plan A.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

It started with Jerry Krause's philosophy. Analyze Krause:

Good --
Looked to pick otherwordly talents over gym rats realizing that you can only go far with certain guys as your best player

Bad --
Hired bad coaches
Got impatient with free agent money
Bad judge of character

Paxson comes in and has the full authority to keep the good things that came from Krause's reign (Curry, Chandler) and get rid of everything else. Then you look at Paxson:

Good -- 
Hires good coaches
Has an eye for guys who can just "play"

Bad --
Never would have picked two players with the talent of Chandler and Curry 

So once Pax got rid of the bad parts of Krause's reign, which happened to be his strengths....you end up with this team which is:

The best of what Krause has to offer + the best of what Paxson has to offer - The fat = 2004-05 Chicago Bulls

You needed Krause to be there and make all those mistakes....he got you Chandler and Curry and wrote a virtual book of how NOT to do most things. 

A bunch of winning college players, around two projects that are turning into phenoms, with a chairman of the old Pacers teams and the European Dennis Rodman? I'll take that all day lol


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

I can't believe someone can criticize Pax for moves *he didn't make*. Especially moves based on his or her own conjecture.

It's mindboggling.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> I can't believe someone can criticize Pax for moves *he didn't make*. Especially moves based on his or her own conjecture.
> 
> It's mindboggling.


Conjecture?

http://202.221.217.59/print/sports/sports2004/sp20040702pv.htm

A Phoenix precinct reports the Celtics and Bulls made identical offers to the Suns for the No. 7 pick -- $3 million, a No. 2 in last Thursday's draft and a future first-rounder -- protected through the third pick in 2005, one in 2006 and unconditional in 2007.

Management based its decision to deal with the Bulls on which team if felt would marginally improve (as opposed to getting worse) next season, figuring they're a lock to get a lottery selection around four, five or six.

Had the Pacers been able to trade up to secure the Bulls No. 3 pick, they would have happily exchanged Al Harrington and assumed Eddie Robinson's two-year guaranteed burden for the privilege of calling Ben Gordon their very own.

Mount Vernon's second coming of Gus Williams figures to be an immediate star; he gets any shot he wants . . . and makes them. Not a prototype point, but if put in pick-and-rolls situations, a la Mark Price, he's not going to be easy to stop.

<B>Offered No. 7 at the same rate of exchange, the Pacers declined, </B>preferring to trade Harrington for someone of immediate consequence and save cap space for next summer's free agent crop.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/v-pfriendly/story/252090p-215816c.html

The Chicago Bulls are committed to trading Eddy Curry and Isiah Thomas believes he can find a place on his roster for the 21-year-old center.

Thomas spoke with Bulls GM John Paxson yesterday and offered the Knicks' starting center, Nazr Mohammed, for Curry, taken out of an Illinois high school as the fourth pick of the 2001 draft. Paxson rejected the deal but the Bulls would be willing to trade the 7-foot, 285-pounder to New York if Thomas increased his offer by making either Kurt Thomas or Michael Sweetney available.

Paxson was fielding calls from several teams regarding Curry's availability but talks only are in the preliminary stages. The Memphis Grizzlies are considered one of the leading candidates to acquire Curry, whose work ethic and limited production have frustrated the Bulls front office and coaching staff. Chicago would prefer to trade Curry to a Western Conference team.

"I'm not going to be pushed into doing something," Paxson said in Chicago yesterday. "He's our player. He's under contract and we have the rights to him going forward. We're in the better position."

<FONT COLOR=0000ff>What exactly did Pax mean by "better position?"</FONT>

This article isn't available, but the headline is Blue Devil Duhon Likely to Play in Europe (Daily Herald, 9/6/04).


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Oh, Peter Vescey wrote that????.... Then I guess you are right... since we all know that Vescey is as reliable as Sam Smith. 

Seriously don't give me a bunch of New York papers that provided you with rumours. 

Unless you can find an article of Pax mentioning these 'so-called' trades... then you can get back to me.

The fact that you're criticizing Pax for trades that didn't go through is ludicrous.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> For those who think it's all Paxson's doing, I cannot ignore the evidence that we almost:
> 1) Had Al Harrington instead of Deng
> 2) Had Duhon playing in Europe
> ...


1 Al Harrington isn't a bad player. He could have helped this team. Right now I'd rather have Deng, but obviously Indiana didn't think the world of Deng, either, because they decided not to trade for him. His play, potential, and athleticism has been surprising for *everyone*. 

2 Duhon didn't play that well in practice or in the summer leagues. He hadn't shown any shooting ability. He outplayed FWill in preseason and stayed. I'm not sure I see what you're saying.

3 Paxson backed out from this trade, not Isaiah. Isaiah almost didn't want to offer Sweetney; that's how low Eddy's value was. Eddy has surprised everyone since by showing an actual work ethic and defensive capability. 

...

I think your implication is that Paxson made good moves, but he easily could have made some bad moves-- which shows that he is still not a good GM. I used to feel the same way as you, that Paxson had gotten extremely lucky, but feel differently now. There are obviously a million moves that Paxson could have made, both good and bad. But in the end, what really matters is what he actually did, lucky or not. The moves that he may have been considering _at those times_ were the correct ones, too. Harrington is a good, in-his-prime, veteran and our team has none. Duhon couldn't shoot. Eddy was playing extremely badly. Luck is always going to come into play. GMs other than Paxson have gotten lucky or unlucky in terms of drafting players or making trades, too. In hindsight, no GM is perfect. 

To this day, I still believe that much more could have been had for Jalen and Donyell-- that it was a bad trade. Paxson panicked 9 games in and gave away too much for too little. This year, he didn't panic, decided to give the team until the end of the year to come through, and they did. He recognized that Curry and Chandler were essential for the team's success, and drafted capable backcourt players to surround them. He recognized that the Bulls needed to play defense to win, and hired a coach that would teach them to play "the right way," aka defense. He fixed this team. 

The Paxson that promised playoffs, that didn't check in on Curry and Chandler during the summer, that panicked after a losing streak, etc. was a rookie. He's learned from those rather large mistakes and has become a good GM. He's shown he understands the value of talent; he's shown he won't panic after a losing streak; he's shown that he understands the NBA game by instituting a defensive-minded coach. 

Ideally, the Bulls would have gotten an experienced GM and then these mistakes wouldn't have happenned. And then maybe we would have been better last year and would be even better this year. But that didn't happen. Paxson's first year on the job was mediocre. His second year has been great. He didn't get lucky; he improved at his GM job, just like an NBA rookie improves through the season.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Great thread! I have enjoyed the conversation in here.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Conjecture?
> ...


From the Sun-Sentinel back in December:

*"It's just something (trade rumors) you've got to deal with in the NBA," Van Gundy said. "Ninety-five percent of what's out there is not true. And of the other 5 percent, 95 percent of that's not going to happen."*

I believe Van Gundy was responding to all the reports about Eddie Jones' imminent departure for Jalen Rose at the time. If anything, Stan's statement does provide some inside perspective regarding published trade reports and their basis in fact. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Conjecture?
> ...


:laugh: :laugh: 

You still criticize Paxson for moves he allegedly <i>almost</i> made? No mention of your public campaigning for Juwan Howard, 'Toine Walker, and seasoned vets on these boards? Just let me know when, I can bump the threads :shy:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> But this could be the shortest-lived recovery in NBA history. At the end of the rainbow sits the Chairman, and we can't count on this team being kept together until the ink is dry on Curry and Chandler's new contracts.
> 
> Put another way--there is no doubt in my mind that the man who bitterly spat the words "I'll regret this someday" after signing Michael Jordan to a $30 million contract is looking at the Bulls with much the same hypercritical eye that DaBullz is.


I was wondering how long it would take you to regurgitate this again.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> Oh, Peter Vescey wrote that????.... Then I guess you are right... since we all know that Vescey is as reliable as Sam Smith.
> 
> Seriously don't give me a bunch of New York papers that provided you with rumours.
> ...


Vecsey somehow got a direct quote from Paxson that some people are chosing to ignore because it doesn't fit their argument.

These things are a glimpse into the way Paxson thinks.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Vecsey somehow got a direct quote from Paxson that some people are chosing to ignore because it doesn't fit their argument.
> ...


Why don't you explain what you think that quote means instead of just asking open ended - "what do you think he meant" questions. 

Because to me, that quote means "I've got the player so I have all the power when it comes to determining what I will or won't take for him." 

Then, applying that interpretation to what happen, Paxson decided the offers were crap and decided to be patient - which paid off. 

I actually agreed with your first post in this thread that the Bulls record is due in part to the level of competition they have been playing lately. But then you proceeded to go into "I'll never admit I'm wrong about anything mode" by hypothisizing about what Paxson could have done, but didn't do, and how that - in bizarro world - makes him a suspect GM.

His moves and non-moves have been golden. Admit it. Of course, that doesn't discount your otherwise valid argument that the Bulls schedule has an impact on their record. But the rest of what you are spouting is simply embarrasing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Conjecture?
> ...


I don't understand your confusion. It seems pretty clear that Paxson was saying that he is in a position to trade Curry or keep him, as he sees fit. And that he didn't _have_ to trade him away, despite the rampant speculation that he would. And that he wouldn't trade Curry unless it was a deal favorable to the Bulls, whatever that may be. So far, he hasn't traded him, and I dare say the lack of making a move with Curry is working out pretty good for the team, lately.

Everything else in the article, such as management's "commitment" to trading Curry, seems to have been just so much media jaw-flapping.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't understand your confusion. It seems pretty clear that Paxson was saying that he is in a position to trade Curry or keep him, as he sees fit. And that he didn't _have_ to trade him away, despite the rampant speculation that he would. And that he wouldn't trade Curry unless it was a deal favorable to the Bulls, whatever that may be. So far, he hasn't traded him, and I dare say the lack of making a move with Curry is working out pretty good for the team, lately.
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Thomas has added Sweetney—previously thought to be off limits—into ongoing trade talks with Paxson regarding Curry.
> 
> Thomas has been in touch with Curry's representatives to gauge their client's interest in playing in New York.
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I like that idea, but I think we probably don't want Penny (which is strange, because I believe I've read in several places he's got a strong relationship with Skiles).
> 
> He's kind of done, but he'd be at a bigger need position for us, and he's a year younger than AD.
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Geez, DaBullz, the post and article from Kismet that you posted totally undercuts your speculation that Pax would have traded Curry for Sweetney. Are you trying to help us out here or what?

So Thomas did offer Sweets, and Curry is still a Bull. Good non-move by Paxson then, right?

Right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Sweetney for Curry?
> 
> ARe you kidding me?
> ...


Some people have short memories.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Ultimately, Paxson still didn't trade Curry.

I don't think you can criticise his 'non' moves.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> I still can't believe Isiah is offering Sweetney.
> 
> Pax, please...... please.... jump on the f'n offer


I guess people really believed this "rumor" to be true, eh?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz, do you care to actually explain the relevance of these posts you are quoting and how they confirm your argument that Paxson is a bad GM because he didn't make moves that he may or may not have ever considered in the first place?

And I'm still waiting for your interpretation of that Paxson quote that you seem to be hanging your hat on.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Some people have short memories.


This thread was already bumped last week. Thanks for regurgitating it btw. Classy move  

Sweets will be fine before all is said and done. He just needs a little more work on his body and most importantly, minutes. I wouldn't do the trade today because obviously the Bulls are winning and the Twin Towers are stepping up.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Do you care to actually explain the relevance of these posts you are quoting and how they confirm your argument that Paxson is a bad GM because he didn't make moves that he may or may not have ever considered in the first place?


One argument is a good GM is someone who considers all his options and explores many options, and is constantly trying to improve the team.

Curry almost got traded, but didn't.
Al Harrington was almost a Bull, but isn't.
Chris Duhon almost played in Europe, but isn't.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!


OK, I agree when it comes to Harrington, since I saw several reports (from a couple local papers too) that said Pax was ready to go on that deal and the Pacers backed out.

But ultimately Pax had the judgement to not pull the trigger on the Sweetney deal, if that report is accurate. 

In the former case, his ultimate decision might be criticized, but I don't see how it can in the latter case. Is it only the fact that he considered it at all that bothers you? I mean, it seems to me that most trades ought to be at least considered- especially when you were in a position such as the Bulls were with Curry at the beginning of the year.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ok. There was a Sweetney rumor. Some people liked it, some not. Maybe talks with Zeke about Sweetney, maybe not.

End of day:










On Bulls roster. 
I think most of us agree now that is a good thing.











Not on Bulls roster.
I think most of us agree now that this is a good thing.


Nothing happened. Good job, Pax.

Exactly where are we supposed to be going with this, again?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> DaBullz, do you care to actually explain the relevance of these posts you are quoting and how they confirm your argument that Paxson is a bad GM because he didn't make moves that he may or may not have ever considered in the first place?
> 
> And I'm still waiting for your interpretation of that Paxson quote that you seem to be hanging your hat on.


The relevance of these posts is that they are desperate attempts to change the subject.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> DaBullz, do you care to actually explain the relevance of these posts you are quoting and how they confirm your argument that Paxson is a bad GM because he didn't make moves that he may or may not have ever considered in the first place?
> 
> And I'm still waiting for your interpretation of that Paxson quote that you seem to be hanging your hat on.


The quote means that IT and Paxson were absolutely talking a deal and that Paxson wanted Sweetney. IT didn't offer Sweetney so Paxson would rather hang on to Curry and listen to other offers.

It's not like he said, "We have no interest in trading curry for anyone."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> This thread was already bumped last week. Thanks for regurgitating it btw. Classy move
> ...


Given the situation at the time, I don't know that you were wrong. It sure seemed like Paxson was set on trading Curry, and Sweetney would have been a lot better than a stick in the eye.

FWIW, here's what I wrote in the thread:



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Oh no.
> 
> Panic is no excuse to compound a series of bad moves with another one. We're seeing those results before our eyes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz:

"Paxson hasn't been perfect, but he's done some things that have turned out well..."
"Paxson hasn't been perfect, but he's done some things that have turned out well..."


Saaaaaaaayyy iiiiit...
Saaaaaaaayyy iiiiit...

Come on:

Saaaaaaaayyy iiiiit...

it is a _tiny_ concession, and its true.

Saaaaaaaayyy iiiiit...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Given the situation at the time, I don't know that you were wrong. It sure seemed like Paxson was set on trading Curry, and Sweetney would have been a lot better than a stick in the eye.
> ...


Well that's the thing. As I said in the other (bumped) thread, the Bulls were 0-6 at the time of writing and Curry had just come off a 4 point 2 rebound performance. It was almost a forgone conclusion that Curry would be traded. Heck, most of us were more worried about not getting any fair value for him and having him leave for nothing.

However, I credit Pax because he didn't blow up the ship after an 0-6 or 0-9 start. Most of the airchair GMs here wanted to, but thank God Paxson didn't.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The quote means that IT and Paxson were absolutely talking a deal and that Paxson wanted Sweetney. IT didn't offer Sweetney so Paxson would rather hang on to Curry and listen to other offers.
> ...


The article Kismet posted indicates:


Thomas has added Sweetney—previously thought to be off limits—into ongoing trade talks with Paxson regarding Curry.

So Zeke did offer Sweetney, but the deal did not go down.

It does say Pax expressed interest in Sweetney, but again -- nothing ultimately happened.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> DaBullz:
> 
> "Paxson hasn't been perfect, but he's done some things that have turned out well..."
> ...


Paxson has been extremely fortunate in the way his moves and non-moves turned out. Before last season, he promised playoffs. Before this season, he said it was going to be a long two years before Cap Space gave him the flexibility to field a quality team.

So, to somehow find genius in his moves and non-moves is difficult. I've been told by some that to be an Objectionist I had to only look at the results. Well, that just isn't true - you can't ignore ALL the evidence that has been in front of us all this time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> The article Kismet posted indicates:
> ...


Take a look at the dates on the articles.

A lot of time transpired between when Sweetney wasn't and then was offered.

If Sweetney was in the deal at the time of the first article, he'd be a bull.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The quote means that IT and Paxson were absolutely talking a deal and that Paxson wanted Sweetney. IT didn't offer Sweetney so Paxson would rather hang on to Curry and listen to other offers.
> ...


But then you posted an article that very clearly says that Thomas ultimately did offer Sweetney, and Paxson still rejected the deal. So how does any of this even remotely support the position you are trying to take.

Lets review (and this is all based on your own posts):

(a) Paxson wouldn't trade Curry unless Sweetney was involved - a position that, if true, you are critical of. Fair enough, if true;

(b) Then Isiah relents, if true, and offers Sweetney which, theoretically would be accepted by Paxson and thus constitute the bad move you feared;

(c) Paxson rejects the deal, if it was ever really offered, and elects to keep Curry thus deliberately and consciously avoiding the pitfall at the core of your concern.

(d) Curry scores 19 points in a rout of the Atlanta Hawks last night.

So, DaBullz, what exactly is your point? Care to answer such a simple and direct question, considering you tend to ignore all the other ones posed to you in this thread?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

While I don't agree on the particular Sweetney issue, I don't understand why everyone seems so irritated that DaBullz isn't coming to Jesus.

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

At other points, DaBullz, I think I could pull up a couple of posts where you suggested you'd seen enough of Curry and were ready to move him yourself.

Thus, while the particular trade might not have suited you, I don't think it's very good support for your argument. The Harrington one, however, is pretty valid IMO.

By the way, I wonder if our record would be any worse with Nazr and Sweetney instead of Eddy. Nazr's a true center and he's having a very good season himself. He's probably at least a middle-class version of Curry. Sweetney could be giving us something off the bench we don't have.

Given that plenty of folks haven't argued that Curry is a big part of our success (more a factor than the key element), would we really be any worse, now or in the long run, if Paxson had done this trade. If so, why?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson has been extremely fortunate in the way his moves and non-moves turned out. Before last season, he promised playoffs. Before this season, he said it was going to be a long two years before Cap Space gave him the flexibility to field a quality team.
> ...


I never said he was a genius. But it is clear that neither is he a buffoon.

Luck? As has been said on this board before, "Luck is the time when preparation and opportunity meet."

You allow your own objectivism to fail when you condemn Pax for speculation like this:

If Sweetney was in the deal at the time of the first article, he'd be a bull.

And pass it off as evidence of Pax' incompetence.

And in fairness, it is only recently that the bell in Eddy's head rang and woke him up to his own potential. Its been a waiting game to see if the wake up call would ever come. Pax did not trade Curry, to NY or to anywhere else, while a lot of us (myself included) were ready for Cheese Sammich and a Bus Token trades to get his malingering butt out of town. 

I'm glad right now Pax didn't dump Eddy.

And to haunt Pax with these boogeyman non-deals that may have been discussed but were never consummated seems an attempt to manufacture failures to prop up an anti-Pax agenda.

Its not fair to dismiss everything that has gone right on Pax' luck and assess averything that has gone wrong (or that _could have gone wrong_) on Pax' alleged incompetence.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> But then you posted an article that very clearly says that Thomas ultimately did offer Sweetney, and Paxson still rejected the deal. So how does any of this even remotely support the position you are trying to take.
> ...


I already answered the question when posed by TomB.

Look at the dates of the two articles.

Talks between the Knicks and Bulls broke off entirely and then Thomas sweetened (so to speak) the offer.

But it doesn't change the fact that Paxson was willing to deal Curry for Sweetney during the first talks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> You allow your own objectivism to fail when you condemn Pax for speculation like this:
> 
> If Sweetney was in the deal at the time of the first article, he'd be a bull.
> ...


I've suggested all along that this was Paxson's Plan A. That's where the evidence clearly points.

All it takes is one quote from Paxson, at the time this trade was proposed, saying, "Curry's my guy, and I'm not going to trade him" to prove otherwise.

Instead, the quotes are "I'm in the driver's seat because he's signed to a Bulls' contract."

If it was his plan to go with these rookies all along, it shouldn't be hard to find a quote of him saying so before the season. Yet, there's the evidence he was willing to give up the #7 pick (Deng) for Al Harrington.

Instead, the quotes are "We're going to suck until 2006."

Like I said, I find it hard to find genius in his moves and non-moves. And I disagree that luck is "the time when preparation and opportunity meet." Luck is whether the dice come up craps or lucky sevens.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that Paxson was willing to deal Curry for Sweetney during the first talks.


Something you have no proof of other than uncited, unconfirmed statements from reporters. Your only support for the theory that Paxson would have done that deal is that reporters, not team officials, said he would and that other posters believed the rumor. Weak.

This is hopeless. I'm done with this particular "debate".


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Something you have no proof of other than uncited, unconfirmed statements from reporters. Your only support for the theory that Paxson would have done that deal is that reporters, not team officials, said he would and that other posters believed the rumor. Weak.
> ...


If there were no quotes, you'd have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> If there were no quotes, you'd have a leg to stand on.


OK, I can't stop. There are no quotes. This is sad.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that Paxson was willing to deal Curry for Sweetney during the first talks.


Willing to _consider_ trading for Sweetney, with the right deal.

You can't blame him for considering the deal, based on Eddy's inconsistent past and the uncertainty that he would ever get it.

Ultimately, a Sweetney possible trade did surface, and it didn't go down, even though IT was apparently willing.

Thank God Pax decided against it.



And sometimes luck is a crap shoot. But deciding not to trade Curry doesn't seem to be a mere roll of the dice.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> You can't blame him for considering the deal, based on Eddy's inconsistent past and the uncertainty that he would ever get it.


As a fan, I want my GM to always consider trade possibilities. Always, always, always.

But thats just me. I'm more team than player, I guess.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, I can't stop. There are no quotes. This is sad.


"I'm not going to be pushed into doing something," Paxson said in Chicago yesterday. "He's our player. He's under contract and we have the rights to him going forward. <B>We're in the better position.</B>"

So this is a figment of the writer's imagination?

Let's go one step further...

Do you think the writer got the .5 seconds of interview with Paxson to just get this quote, or do you think there were a lot of things Paxson said and the writer used this particular quote:
1) out of context
2) because it basically summarized the entire conversation
3) some other reason


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...y?coll=cs-bulls-navigation&ctrack=1&cset=true



> The Bulls have now lost 34 straight games on this annual extended November trip and are 0-6 for the first time since 1967-68, when they started 0-9.
> 
> How Curry's inconsistency affects trade talks remains to be seen, but two league sources said that Knicks President Isiah Thomas has reversed his stance on power forward Michael Sweetney.
> 
> ...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

In order to trade someone, another team needs to approach you first. NY approached paxson and low-balled him like any other GM would try and do to a GM who's team is playing lousy. IT made an offer, Paxson said no. Time passed. NY finally added Sweetney and pax still said no. That tells me the oposite of what is being said as reasoning. That being:

_If Sweetney had been offered in the beginning he would be a bulls now."_ I don't buy it. To insinuate that Paxson was holding out for Sweentey is not a correct way of reasoning imo. If this was true, Pax would have made the deal later and yet he didn't. 

Pax did not approach NY. It was the other way around. Pax quote about having all of the chips or something similar to that is correct. We did not HAVE to trade Curry at that time. If we did, Nazr and Sweetney both would be Bulls. 

GM's discuss trades all of the time. If people are going to hold GM's accountable for something they talked about doing or something that was said during negotiations then every GM in the league should be held accountable. 

All of this being said, I can see your concern Dabullz and understand somewhat what you are trying to say, correct me if I am wrong, you are worried over some ****-a-mainee move Pax might make in the future based on some trade talks that he has had since the summer that never actually materialized into actual trades. Am I right? I think any fan has some fear over what the GM might do next. That holds true on any team, any sport. 

I find comfort for now that Paxson has made some good non-moves so far. The team is clicking and I am enjoying it!!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> While I don't agree on the particular Sweetney issue, I don't understand why everyone seems so irritated that DaBullz isn't coming to Jesus.
> 
> ----------------
> ...


And now you have taken the bait, as well. A thread discussing why the Bulls have improved so rapidly has morphed into a thread discussing Paxson's alleged non-moves.

At the end of the day, the Bulls are playing very good basketball and in exactly the style that Paxson and Skiles have envisioned. We can complain about non-moves until our fingers fall off, but how many GMs would love to have what the Bulls have - a ridiculously young core that is playing better basketball than all but a handful of teams? Heck, it is not out of the realm of possibility that this team could be a contender as early as this season. Young teams just don't improve this quickly, so it is hard to speculate where the upside ends.

On Friday my wife and I had lunch with someone very high up in an organization for a good team that beat us recently. He was very impressed with the Bulls and said that if not for a couple of bonehead plays by Eddy Curry, the Bulls would have beaten us. In essence, he was arguing that his team got lucky in beating the Bulls.

Many of us thought that the Bulls needed more scoring to avoid a series of unfortunate losses. I thought the Bulls needed Jamal Crawford for at least one more season to keep pressure off of Ben Gordon. But the defense has improved so rapidly that the Bulls can live with an offense that is only marginally better than last season. And Othella Harrington, acquired in the trade for Crawford, has provided offensive punch for the Bulls.

There are so many catalysts for the Bulls success, it is hard to know where to begin. Kirk Hinirch has turned into a legitimate star in this league. Last season he and Crawford were very similar in productivity, but this season he pops up as one of the top 20 players in the league in my statistical ratings. And he may even be a little better than that, because he does a little of everything which allows him to fill in the cracks on any given night for the Bulls. That is important because the Bulls have so many role players.

As I have argued for a long time now, I think Eddy Curry is an overrated offensive player and underrated defender. For quite awhile now, he has been a good defender of his own man. What has happened this season is that he now is beginning to understand how to play help defense. Other than scoring, nothing is natural for Curry, so it has taken him time to learn that part of the game. And so now instead of being a defensive liability who repeatedly blows assignments, he helps anchor what is becoming an intimidating front line for the Bulls.

And offensively, the Bulls are not trying to forcefeed Curry too much, so he is allowed to play the role of scorer rather than franchise savior. He still turns the ball over way too much and his passing is improving at a glacial pace, but he is becoming more efficient on offense. Call me crazy, but right now I think he is a little better on the defensive end than he is on the offensive end. But as he gets better on offense, he still has the potential to be the dominant force that everyone sees from time to time.

Also, the fact that Curry now is able to produce for more than just the first 10 minutes of the first quarter is huge. Having a scorer like him for the fourth quarter has been very important for the Bulls.

Tyson Chandler is becoming a monster. He played like this for a handful of games at the beginning of last season, but Chandler is a game changer. He also rates in the top 20 in my statistical ratings and if we only look at games in the last couple months, he often pops up in the top five. Most of his improvement has come through becoming more consistent. I would love to see better hands and more offense from him and I cannot believe that Skiles has not been able to get him to keep blocks inbounds, but Chandler at his best is our best player right now. (Hinrich still is the most valuable Bull, because of his ability to fill in the cracks.)

Luol Deng never shows up as super-productive in my statistical ratings, but I think he shares Hinrich's ability to find ways to help the Bulls win. And his length, combined with that of Curry and Chandler, really makes it tough for teams to get good shots against the Bulls. I think Deng already is playing at the level of Tayshaun Prince and that is saying a lot. Increasingly, I think that guys with lots of length at the SF position are very valuable to teams. 

As Deng gets a little stronger and develops a post-up game, I think he could become a great player in this league. Having two players like Hinrich and Deng who can do so many things and have attitudes that allow them do what the team needs is a real treasure. They make it possible for the other role players to excel in their roles.

Chris Duhon can defend point guards and that has been an achille heel for the Bulls for quite some time. He also moves the ball around and now is starting to hit shots. I remember so many scouts telling me at the Chicago Pre-Draft camp that Duhon would not make it in this league. I trusted them because I figured they saw something that I didn't, but still it looked to me like he was a guy who would be able to defend and run a team. And there did not seem to be any good reason to think he wouldn't be able to become a better shooter. And even now, lots of folks seem to assume that Ben Gordon is a lot better than Duhon. I am not so sure.

So this gets me Ben Gordon. Right now, Ben Gordon is the ultimate role player - 4th quarter scoring specialist. He is a turnover machine and mediocre on defense, the latter which is magnified on a great defensive team like the Bulls. Lots of folks think Skiles is giving tough love to Gordon by not playing him very much. I think Skiles is putting his best team on the floor, and right now Duhon is a good deal better than Gordon. Duhon is much, much better than Gordon in my statistical ratings.

Antonio Davis provides solid defense and a sometimes dependable mid-range shot. Othella Harrington provides offensive spark when the Bulls need it. Andres Nocioni is often a mistake waiting to happen, but he brings intensity that can sometimes help in the middle of a game. Adrian Griffin has been very effective in limited minutes and can defend big guards. And Erik Piatkowski is another guy who can give the Bulls productive minutes on those nights when productive minutes are hard to find.

All in all, the Bulls have melded together a bunch of pretty good role players with two guys in Hinrich and Deng who can alter their game to make up for what the role players on the floor at any given time cannot give the Bulls. It has them a very effective team.

You have to give Paxson and Skiles a lot of the credit for this. This was their vision and a Jalen Rose or Jamal Crawford or Antoine Walker or Juwan Howard would have messed all of this up. Those of us who argued that they needed more scoring were wrong. Anyone who is still willing to be on the Fire Skiles or Fire Paxson bandwagons is, IMHO, just plain nuts.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> "I'm not going to be pushed into doing something," Paxson said in Chicago yesterday. "He's our player. He's under contract and we have the rights to him going forward. <B>We're in the better position.</B>"
> ...


This is where I'm befuddled.

What is your criticism of PAx' statement of position? Pax says we have Eddy and he is ours unless someone offers a package that entices Pax to give him up.

Exactly what is wrong with saying that? I still fail to follow. No offense -- I really am trying to understand the point...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/253843p-217337c.html

NY writer here:


> Isiah Thomas had another conversation with Chicago Bulls GM John Paxson in recent days, and it now appears that Thomas would be willing to trade Michael Sweetney for Eddy Curry.
> 
> The Bulls, however, are prepared to wait and see if they can field better offers for Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> "I'm not going to be pushed into doing something," Paxson said in Chicago yesterday. "He's our player. He's under contract and we have the rights to him going forward. <B>We're in the better position.</B>"
> ...


No, I'm sure he did say that. But that quote doesn't even remotely stand for the proposition that you link with it. It is an unambiguous statement by a GM that he has the power to accept or reject trade proposals for a guy under contract.

Really, please answer this, how does that quote prove that Paxson would have traded Curry for Sweetney? 

Please explain.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> And now you have taken the bait, as well. A thread discussing why the Bulls have improved so rapidly has morphed into a thread discussing Paxson's alleged non-moves.
> 
> ...


Awesome post Dan :yes: That was the motherload..... gracias


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> "I'm not going to be pushed into doing something," Paxson said in Chicago yesterday. "He's our player. He's under contract and we have the rights to him going forward. <B>We're in the better position.</B>"
> 
> So this is a figment of the writer's imagination?
> ...


Jesus DaBullz, this is a remarkable reach on your part. Practically any GM in the league could say this about any player on his team. So what is the big deal? Surely, Paxson would trade Hinrich if the Cavs offered LeBron James. If such a trade was being discussed, Paxson could pop out this quote as a way of not really saying anything, buying him some more time to consider the deal.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

i just dont think paxson was really going to trade curry for sweets even thro i like his game, curry has more tools.

As for paxson, my any estimation he has made alot of moves and clearly they are paying off. He has only two bulls that were on the team before he was gm (EC and TC). Everybody else is gone. We can discuss weather this was a good move or not but regardless, paxson had a plan and an idea of what kind of players he wanted and he went out and signed, traded for, or drafted them. 

Pike, harrington, AG, and AD. These guys are the glue of our team.

KH, gordon, duhan, and deng all drafted by paxson.

noci was already commented before any one else was even aware he was interested in coming to the nba.

How could anyone not look at these move and not say this is paxson's team and his and skiles stamp are all over it.

david


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> This is where I'm befuddled.
> ...


My criticism isn't of Pax's statement. His statement indicates he wasn't offered what HE WANTED, which was Sweetney.

To use superdave's article:

"As previously reported, Paxson expressed interest in Sweetney when Thomas made an initial call about Curry with Nazr Mohammed as bait. The acquisition of Sweetney would allow the Bulls to play Tyson Chandler at center, a lineup that Paxson and Skiles sometimes favor."

You write "he is ours unless someone offers a package that entices Pax to give him up."

You should write "he is ours unless IT offers a package including Sweetney."

There's nothing more to be read into it.

For superdave,

The newspapers reported IT offered a package of Nazr (plus) for Curry. That's the "as previously reported" part of the quote of your chosen article. That was on November 12. The article you quote is November 18. Between those dates, the talks broke down entirely before IT came back with an offer including Sweetney.

For whatever reason, Paxson didn't want to make the deal by then. I could speculate (i.e. Paxson was turned off by dealing with IT about ANYTHING by that point), but that would be nothing but speculation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Dan, you should e-mail that post to Red Kerr and Tom Dore. They could use that as a crib sheet for the rest of the season and their commentary would improve in quality 1,000%.

I'm not kidding about that suggestion.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> For whatever reason, Paxson didn't want to make the deal by then. I could speculate (i.e. Paxson was turned off by dealing with IT about ANYTHING by that point), but that would be nothing but speculation.


Yeah, you really shouldn't speculate about anything. It might affect your credibility.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> My criticism isn't of Pax's statement. His statement indicates he wasn't offered what HE WANTED, which was Sweetney.
> ...



This thread is funny. DaBullz, you're going after Pax for something he never did? I think you've tried to show that eventually he was offered Sweetney by IT and Pax still rejected the deal. So, what's the problem? As for the previous quote you supplied, Dan Rosenbaum pretty much said what I would have. There are 30 GM's in the league who would have responded the exact same way to that question. Any GM who isn't willing to listen to deals isn't doing his job.

You use the term speculation in the above quote. It seems to me that you even admit that this is all speculation and yet your going on as if this were all completely verified fact when its not.

Last season, you were all about wins. It didn't matter who we had or who scored or did well or blew the game. The only thing that mattered to you was wins. That was your barometer on judging both Pax and Skiles. By your measuring stick, they both failed miserably. Hence, the creation of the Fire Pax and Skiles clubs. Now, this team is actually doing well. They're winning games and so now that you can no longer use that particular measuring stick, you turn you ire towards things that are simply speculation? Have you nothing more solid to hang your pessimism on? 

Dan R. , as usual, was pretty right on with his novella-like post. Regardless of how you slice it, no matter how you dissect it, Pax and Skiles have assembled a group of players that complement each other well. They play both ends of the floor and cover each other weaknesses pretty darn well. Is it really so hard to simply enjoy what we finally have after six years of dreck? Must you adhear so doggedly to a stance that is now based purely on speculation? This is a pretty good ballclub. I still think there's going to be some down times but this team is much better than any team assembled by either Krause or Pax since the departure of Jordan. So, enjoy it. Revel in it. Embrace it and maybe, just maybe you might see it in yourself to give Pax even a mustard-seed sized amount of credit for the work he's done rather than focusing on the things that he supposedly could have done.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I was wondering how long it would take you to regurgitate this again.


The issue has become much more critical than it was when were losing, I'm afraid.

I just want everyone to remember how much they're gushing about Paxson and Skiles and what they've put together, especially after Atlanta or Charlotte throws an 80-million-dollar offer (or whatever the equivalent will be under the revised CBA) and the excuses start flowing -- "Oh, we can't offer that much to a player who doesn't start," "We felt giving Curry a contract of that size would cripple us in the future," etc.

In sum, I wholeheartedly agree that Paxson, Skiles, and the players are doing their part. I'm sorry if it seems repetitious, but I am very worried about the ownership group doing its part, and I'm not going to stop being concerned about it until Chandler and Curry are kept in the fold for the long haul. There is no other acceptable outcome.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I've been told by some that to be an Objectionist I had to only look at the results. Well, that just isn't true - you can't ignore ALL the evidence that has been in front of us all this time.


I think you might be referring to me. In truth, I find that you usually use W/L records and various other "results" to frame your arguments when you see fit, but when they no longer support your arguments, you fish for other evidence. I was just trying to prove a point using the method of argument you usually prefer, to see how you'd react. Based on RESULTS, Pax has done an even better job than he thought he would. Are we going to criticize him for the fact that his plan worked even better than he thought? :laugh:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Chris Duhon actually plays defense. We've not had a PG that played defense in years. JWill and Crawford were as bad a twosome at guard, on defense, as you can put on the floor.
> 
> AD is having the best year he could possibly have.
> ...



If the argument is we're really not as good as we think we are, then ask yourself this:

Do teams look forward to playing us?

Do teams put the W in their column before the tip?

Do the Bulls feel like they're capable of beating anyone?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Are we going to criticize him for the fact that his plan worked even better than he thought? :laugh:


You mean like when Rod Thorn drafted Jordon #3 only because the top centers on the board went 1 and 2?

I'll take that kind of good fortune all the way to the bank, any day of the week!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is funny. DaBullz, you're going after Pax for something he never did? I think you've tried to show that eventually he was offered Sweetney by IT and Pax still rejected the deal. So, what's the problem? As for the previous quote you supplied, Dan Rosenbaum pretty much said what I would have. There are 30 GM's in the league who would have responded the exact same way to that question. Any GM who isn't willing to listen to deals isn't doing his job.


It's also important to note that DaBullz is considering the comment "expressed interest", in the opinion of a beat reporter, to mean that there is 100% certainty that Pax WOULD HAVE dealt for Sweetney. This simply isn't the case. GMs are "interested" in all kinds of players that they never deal for.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you might be referring to me. In truth, I find that you usually use W/L records and various other "results" to frame your arguments when you see fit, but when they no longer support your arguments, you fish for other evidence. I was just trying to prove a point using the method of argument you usually prefer, to see how you'd react. Based on RESULTS, Pax has done an even better job than he thought he would. * Are we going to criticize him for the fact that his plan worked even better than he thought?* :laugh:


you betcha  

whatever they can think of
:laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The issue has become much more critical than it was when were losing, I'm afraid.
> ...


I'm not going to pretend that my memory is flawless. But I don't recall Reinsdorf refusing to pony up when it was deserved. 

What I do remember is:

(a) Paying MJ $35 million per (a no-brainer, I admit).

(b) Advising Pip not to opt for a modest, yet long-term deal, because it would bite him in the but financially later;

(c) Paying $3 million dollars to acquire the Deng pick.

I understand your concern - it is a concern that a fan of almost any team would have. I just haven't seen the past refusal to pay earned dollars that would support your fears as they specifically relate to JR.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The issue has become much more critical than it was when were losing, I'm afraid.
> ...


yeah, its all a concern. But winning changes everything. Even "the Chairman" wouldn't touch this team if it continues like this


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I just want everyone to remember how much they're gushing about Paxson and Skiles and what they've put together, especially after Atlanta or Charlotte throws an 80-million-dollar offer (or whatever the equivalent will be under the revised CBA) and the excuses start flowing -- "Oh, we can't offer that much to a player who doesn't start," "We felt giving Curry a contract of that size would cripple us in the future," etc.


I think a lot of us have some trepidation about how the contract situations will work out this summer. Should Pax and Skiles be fired NOW because of a a situation that hasn't happened yet?

If Curry and/or Chandler leave this offseason and we don't get something of comparable value back for them, that would be cause for grave concern. But I'm not going to preemptively call for Pax's head for that now. That's just silly, IMO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> And now you have taken the bait, as well. A thread discussing why the Bulls have improved so rapidly has morphed into a thread discussing Paxson's alleged non-moves.


Not at all. The first question posed was "why have the Bulls improved".

Several alternative answers were put forth, and among them were arguments that it was mainly due to Paxson's smart moves. Thus, I don't see how Dabullz' disagreeing with that constitutes him pulling a bait and switch.

The part of the debate with Dabullz appeared to start with him saying other teams got worse and me (among others) saying the Bulls got better.

It appeared that Dabullz conceded on this point when he said:



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Of course the Bulls improved, too. I made this point in some Crawford vs. Ben Gordon thread (who's better, Crawford+Shirley+Johnson+DuPree or Gordon+Nocioni+Deng+Chandler?).
> 
> ...


Given that we reached some common ground on that issue, how much more was there to debate and how does it constitute any misdirection to return to another (different) line of thought about why the Bulls improved and then disagree with it.

I mean, there's some agreement that was reached there. Some of the winning is probably due to loss in quality from other teams, some is due to our improvement. Neither side in that debate really addressed the points being raised by guys who gave credit primarily to Paxson for "changing culture" or whatnot.



> At the end of the day, the Bulls are playing very good basketball and in exactly the style that Paxson and Skiles have envisioned. We can complain about non-moves until our fingers fall off, but how many GMs would love to have what the Bulls have - a ridiculously young core that is playing as good of basketball as all but a handful of teams. Heck, it is not out of the realm of possibility that this team could be a contender as early as this season. Young teams just don't improve this quickly, so it is hard to speculate where the upside ends.
> 
> On Friday my wife and I had lunch with someone very high up in an organization for a good team that beat us recently. He was very impressed with the Bulls and said that if not for a couple of bonehead plays by Eddy Curry, the Bulls would have beaten us. In essence, he was arguing that his team got lucky in beating the Bulls.
> 
> ...


Great info and analysis there. Really... I mean that's about as good a summation as I've seen. I'm just not quite as ready to go as far as your last paragraph.

Paxson and Skiles do get a lot of the credit, which is implicit in the fact that they put together this team. When you compliment Hinrich or Deng or Gordon or Curry or Chandler's play, you're complimenting they guys who got them or kept them around. And they've put together a very good defensive team with good chemistry.

That being said, there are some valid knocks. I think the point on Al Harrington is valid. Everything I've read suggests that Pax (who was looking for more veteran presence, more D, and more scoring), was ready and willing to give up the Deng pick to get him. Nor did he expect Deng to be there when he kept the pick, as best I can tell, but he was willing to settle for the college experience and hard work of Luke Jackson.

Obviously those things didn't happen, but they do tap into a legitimate concern. Yes, Paxson was right to look to establish "chemistry", get guys who were "vets" and who "played the right way". Of course. But in his zest for doing so, he very nearly over-reached and missed out on someone who, I think, is going to be a far superior player.

Similarly, I'm not sure having Crawford around as another scorer would really mess things up. Ultimately we do need someone who can play the "Toni Kukoc role" on this team, and that's still my best guess of what Jamal evolves into. Again, yes, I understand the logic, but I think not having a steadier player at the beginning of the year brought us to within a knife's edge of collapse. Thank god things turned out as they did, but let's not be revisionist about things either- the reposted stories about the Curry-Sweetney talk, regardless of anything else, do sort of make clear the kinds of things that were being considered at the time. Ultimately we held the fort and that was the right call (for which Paxson deserves credit), but that credit has to be measured by a realistic examination of how close we came to failure.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> . Ultimately we held the fort and that was the right call (for which Paxson deserves credit), *but that credit has to be measured by a realistic examination of how close we came to failure*.


LOL


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

WOW... I can't believe I just read this whole thread. 

Thanks everyone. I'm officially dumber now.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Ok, I'm convinced. DaBullz is bizarro Kismet. Maybe he's a shill.  Certainly has generated some hall of fame posts on this thread. 


I doubt there's a GM in this league that could withstand the scrutiny of DaBullz and some other posters. Without knowing Jerry West's non-decisions over the last year, I'm sure he would be crucified for signing Cardinal to that fat contract and not re-signing Swift.


Fire Ainge!
Fire Thorn!
Fire Thomas!
Fire King!
Fire Babcock!
Fire Bickerstaff!
Fire Harris!
Fire JIM Paxson!
Fire Baylor!
Fire West!
Fire Knight!
Fire Riley!
Fire Bristow!
Fire O Connor!
Fire Petrie!
Fire Kupchak!
Fire Weisbrod!
Fire Nelson!
Fire Vandegwhe!
Fire Walsh!
Fire Dumars!
Fire Dawson!
Fire Sund!
Fire Buford!
Fire Colangelo!
Fire McHale!
Fire Nash!
Fire Mullin!
Fire Grunfeld!

Ok, maybe keep Dumars and Walsh.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

As to the decline in quality of competition argument, it is not too long ago (read November and early December) that we were still the laughing stocks of the league. Now we are playing head and shoulders above many teams in the league. Part of that may be due to the teams around us getting worse. It would be hard to argue against the fact that at least some of it has to do with the Bulls getting better.

If we're getting better while so many of the teams we compete against are declining, isn't that grounds for doubly praising the organization's gains, rather than reason grounds to be dismissive of the organization's gains?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I think the point on Al Harrington is valid. Everything I've read suggests that Pax (who was looking for more veteran presence, more D, and more scoring), was ready and willing to give up the Deng pick to get him.


And? Al Harrington is good. And he's still only 24.

As much as I like Deng, I don't see how Paxson's willingness (which unlike the other hollow speculation in this thread, has actually been confirmed) to trade the #7 pick for Harrington can be viewed as a bad thing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> WOW... I can't believe I just read this whole thread.
> 
> Thanks everyone. I'm officially dumber now.


I'd have bet dollars to donuts that wasn't possible.

Go figure.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> LOL


Remember the pilot episode of the Simpsons, where Homer and Bart take the Christmas money to the dog track and lose it all but still come away with Santa's Little Helper?

I'm not saying it's that bad or anything, but there's a certain arrogance that comes with winning that overlooks the bad decisions and puts success, (regardless of whether it was by design) on a pedestal.

Success should be on a celebrated, but it's no excuse to stop thinking. Doing so tends to bring success to a premature end.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

As DaBullz is the only person on his side of the fence it seems, I feel bad to only criticize one side of the argument.

However, I wanted to point out what could be some potential flaws in his statistical argument.

1) Since your are looking at the composite of team's winning % from last season and comparing it to this season, there has to be some factor of strength of schedule thrown into the mix when looking at a mid-season analysis. 

The end of the season is the best measure, because everyone's strength of schedule is the same as long as you are comparing teams in the same conference.

2) You also need to factor in how many wins these teams that are performing worse had against the Bulls last year.

If CHI wins a game this year that they lost last year, that's one more loss and one less win that they would have had last year (each time they would have played the Bulls last year). I

3) You also need to make adjustments for injuries, but this is getting a little extreme, and I probably wouldn't do this either, but would admit that the flaw is there.

4) I hope I'm being clear enough. I'm not trying to say your hypothesis is wrong. I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the statistical side of your argument. After making these adjustments, it would be interesting to see if the numbers look the same way as you seem to take as fact at this point.

And no, I don't have time to do this myself.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> Ok, I'm convinced. DaBullz is bizarro Kismet. Maybe he's a shill.  Certainly has generated some hall of fame posts on this thread.


Recent DaBullz sighting:










And that's not a bad thing: I was always a fan of Bizarro Superman...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> And? Al Harrington is good. And he's still only 24.
> 
> As much as I like Deng, I don't see how Paxson's willingness (which unlike the other hollow speculation in this thread, has actually been confirmed) to trade the #7 pick for Harrington can be viewed as a bad thing.


I think that Paxson thought long and hard about this deal, but then decided against it. I think the press accounts capture him at various points in this decision-making process. I do not like Harrington's game at all, so this would have been an easy one for me, but I respect anyone who would have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this deal. #7 picks rarely end up as good as Luol Deng.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Remember the pilot episode of the Simpsons, where Homer and Bart take the Christmas money to the dog track and lose it all but still come away with Santa's Little Helper?
> ...


i guess that it all boils down to what you consider to be "a realistic examination"

anyways, Pax and Skiles aren't Homer and Bart


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I think that Paxson thought long and hard about this deal, but then decided against it. I think the press accounts capture him at various points in this decision-making process. I do not like Harrington's game at all, so this would have been an easy one for me, but I respect anyone who would have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this deal. #7 picks rarely end up as good as Luol Deng.


This is a good point. I also think the Pacers were only interested in the pick provided that one of the marquee PGs from this draft fell to #7 (since they wanted the #3/Ben Gordon). I also think Pax was willing to deal the pick based on the assumption that Deng would be snapped up before #7 and that he'd most likely be picking Jackson with that pick. I don't think anyone really saw Deng or Iggy falling to where they did.

I'm not sure of the timetable of events - in other words, I don't know whether Pax was prepared to deal the pick before knowing who was available there. The articles posted didn't make that entirely clear. I tend to think that if the deal was supposed to go down AFTER the draft, the Bulls AND the Pacers would have both backed out - Chicago filled its need and the Pacers wanted a PG, but we wouldn't give them Gordon. But that's just me thinking "out loud".


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> And? Al Harrington is good. And he's still only 24.
> ...


I agree. Harrington is a decent player, and we had ERob's contract to give up anyway. Sometimes people forget just how rare it is for a team with so many young players and over-the-hill veterans to win. We don't have a single veteran in his prime, but we're still winning. Harrington definitely could have helped earlier in the season. 

I do have a problem with Paxson's willingness to take Luke Jackson, however. There was a very slim chance that Deng would still be there at 7. Luke Jackson is horrible and Paxson's liking of him causes me to slightly downgrade my perception of Paxson's ability to judge talent.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> Luke Jackson is horrible and Paxson's liking of him causes me to slightly downgrade my perception of Paxson's ability to judge talent.


to be fair, he's been trying to play through a bad back injury since training camp, and finally got shut down last week. He might not be as bad as he looked this season. That said, I didn't want Jackson either.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> And? Al Harrington is good. And he's still only 24.
> ...


Well sure, I like Harrington as a player in an abstract sense, but I think Harrington vs. Deng, within the context of the Bulls and what the Bulls needed, is a no brainer for Deng.

* Harrington's kind of a guy who likes to operate in the post. That'd be good when Curry's not in the game, but it could cause problems when they are.

* Harrington's kind of a tweener, and a guy who'd have a hard time being the sort of "glue" that Deng is.

* Harrington's a good defender, but I'd rate him as slightly less quick than Deng, and not possessing of the same kind of intangibles (I suppose that's a personal viewpoint, but I wanted Deng going all the back before the draft). That extra quickness gives Deng more ability to fit in as our big defender and as a team defender.

* Harrington's proved to me that he's a capable starting quality player, but that's about it. That's a nice thing to have, but this is a star driven league. Deng appears to be capable of being a star. By my rating system, Deng is already the better player.

Because of those things, I think Harrington would have been a more questionable fit in the short-run because his talents don't necessarily mesh with the needs of the team. In the longer run, he was a much worse bet.

Now, it was perfectly understandable to want a little more stability, a bit more experience, and a bit more age. And that would have fit into the philosophy Pax was going for. But in this case, it was a step too far in that direction, at the expense of fit and talent.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not going to pretend that my memory is flawless. But I don't recall Reinsdorf refusing to pony up when it was deserved.
> ...


I'm worried. Here are some reasons....

(a) Letting a young Horace Grant go to Orland as FA after winning 3 championships in Chicago

(b) Trading Brand, Miller and Artest while on their rookie contracts

(c) Letting Pippen as FA after winning 6 championships in Chicago

(d) Not using all of the MLE this year. It could have been used to give Duhon a multi-year contract with team options


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a good point. I also think the Pacers were only interested in the pick provided that one of the marquee PGs from this draft fell to #7 (since they wanted the #3/Ben Gordon). I also think Pax was willing to deal the pick based on the assumption that Deng would be snapped up before #7 and that he'd most likely be picking Jackson with that pick. I don't think anyone really saw Deng or Iggy falling to where they did.
> ...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> WOW... I can't believe I just read this whole thread.
> 
> Thanks everyone. I'm officially dumber now.


its become rather specious eh? 

:sigh:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm worried. Here are some reasons....
> ...


First, I forgot to add ponying up $10 million to buyout E-Rob instead of trying to get more out of him or continuing to try to trade him. 

Also, paying MJ $35 mil to play minor league baseball in Alabama. Those are other indications that he will spend to win.

Now to your concerns:

(a) Who was then subsequently replaced by Rodman once Jordan returned and the Bulls didn't miss a beat.

(b) After he was traded, Brand openly said he planned on leaving Chicago in free agency. Miller and Artest were traded in exchange for a max contract player with 5 years left on his contract. 

(c) To rebuild the team from scratch after Jackson and Jordan left.

(d) The point with Duhon is based on hindsight.

I stand by my position that there is no, or very little, evidence to suggest that JR won't pay when its deserved and will help the team win.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a good point. I also think the Pacers were only interested in the pick provided that one of the marquee PGs from this draft fell to #7 (since they wanted the #3/Ben Gordon). I also think Pax was willing to deal the pick based on the assumption that Deng would be snapped up before #7 and that he'd most likely be picking Jackson with that pick. I don't think anyone really saw Deng or Iggy falling to where they did.
> ...


Great insights, as usual, VF!!!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. Harrington is a decent player, and we had ERob's contract to give up anyway. Sometimes people forget just how rare it is for a team with so many young players and over-the-hill veterans to win. We don't have a single veteran in his prime, but we're still winning. Harrington definitely could have helped earlier in the season.
> ...


Isn't it possible that he thought both Deng and Iggy would both be gone by #7. Of Childress, Snyder, and Jackson, assumedly there at the #7, Jackson would make the most sense in that we need a wing and we need shooters.

Gordon was his guy, and we traded the #7 to acquire our most desparte need at the time, the SF. In theory, we sacrificed a #3 pick at our weakest position to land a lottery #7 SF in a draft that was deep at the position. There was still upside to his backup plan (Jackson) if Iggy or Deng fell that low, or maybe he knew all along that Deng was expected to slip after inquiring about trades of picks to other teams #1-6, and getting a feel for who they liked.

It's obvious that Paxson liked Jackson. It's even more obvious that he liked Deng more than Jackson. It's not so obvious whether he had Jackson ahead of Iggy or not on his draft board. It's also quite possible that we took on the risk because he knew we were landing Nocioni, which the public was not sure whether this was seriously happening or not.

I loved Paxson's draft strategy. While I was not sold on Gordon as being the guy, I was willing to trust him as Pax's guy. And if he were the guy, the overall strategy Paxson took seemed more than solid, especially when you consider our 04-05 record as it currently stands.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Now to your concerns:
> 
> (a) Who was then subsequently replaced by Rodman once Jordan returned and the Bulls didn't miss a beat.
> ...


Dude, you are chugging the Kool-Aid hard. Clearly, you feel that JR can do no wrong.

Without a doubt, Horace Grant should have been resigned. We won 55 games with him without MJ. We were .500 without him until MJ came back. Then Grant's team with great play by Grant knocked us out of the playoffs.

Not signing Grant caused us to lose at least 1 championship and would have others if the long-shot on Rodman had not worked out.

JR has NEVER signed a long-term contract to one of his young guns. *Unless that person is a top 50 NBA player of all time*

IF you ain't worried in the slightest, you are being about as objective as DaBullz.

EDIT: In bold


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> I stand by my position that there is no, or very little, evidence to suggest that JR won't pay when its deserved and will help the team win.


I think you're right, but I can't say I'm completely unworried.

But JR has always said he'd "pay for a winner". The concern that we Bulls fans, rightly, had about this is that due to the length of rookie deals and such, the Bulls were unlikely to be a winner before Curry and Chandler's (and Crawford's before them) deals came up. Then, we'd be left to wonder if JR would pay for a team that seemed to be going in the right direction, but wasn't there yet.

The great thing about this team is that, if they keep playing well, JR will have to put his money where his mouth is. There won't be the excuse of "why should I have a $50-60mil payroll for a 30-win team?" But of course, Pax and Skiles have nothing to do with this


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Interesting take on the Bulls and Phoenix by a third party. 



> Last month, I did a little write up of the Phoenix Suns. With the Suns heading into New York on Tuesday, it's seems like as good a time as any to revisit that column, and see how my analysis has stood up over time.
> 
> 
> _Phoenix still has a few chips to cash in. Although they owe a future first to San Antonio (protected), they also own the Bulls first round pick (protected top 3). The way the Bulls are playing it would be a waste to trade that pick for only a bench player or two._
> ...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i seriously WAS worried johnston. Until Reinsdorf said recently that he wants to keep this team together. I think he likes this team.
That this all depends on his whims isn't very comforting however, but the prevailing Reinsdorfian opinion is a thumbs up apparently


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The guy I'd be worried about the Bulls resigning is Chandler.

Curry is on all the highlight shows... the average fan is raving about Eddy Curry. (and hinrich, paxson and skiles)

Other than the intense fan... I don't hear many people gushing about Chandler.

I still think a team will offer him a large deal... especially if front offices are starting to use the statistical techniques of Dean O and Dan R. 

This is the guy that Jerry R can let go of without causing a huge public uproar.

Jerry R has not resigned 1 draft pick other than the team option since the rebuilding began. Didn't spend money on Brand. Didn't want to take the risk on CrAzY RoN. Didn't want to be put in a position to resign Miller. Didn't resign Crawford. 

Its something to worry about.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i was more worried than I am now, mainly because of the Reinsdorf interview, and that the new CBA will possibly allow the Bulls to resign Chandler and Curry without sacrificing the cap room when AD and E-Robs deals expire.

Dan, is this true?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> i seriously WAS worried johnston. Until Reinsdorf said recently that he wants to keep this team together. I think he likes this team.
> That this all depends on his whims isn't very comforting however, but the prevailing Reinsdorfian opinion is a thumbs up apparently


I am also glad to see JR's and Pax's quotes. However.... Easy to say now. Good even from a negotiating ploy. Let's see what happens if some other team drops a ton of money.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Other than the intense fan... I don't hear many people gushing about Chandler.


I think Jerry and Paxson are at least as familiar with the team as even the intense fan.



> Jerry R has not resigned 1 draft pick other than the team option since the rebuilding began. Didn't spend money on Brand. Didn't want to take the risk on CrAzY RoN. Didn't want to be put in a position to resign Miller. Didn't resign Crawford.
> 
> Its something to worry about.


They got Chandler for Brand. You just got done admitting you fear losing Chandler...

Crazy Ron, as good as he is when playing, is spending the season playing Foozball in his basement.

Miller...well I'd like to have him back.

Crawford? Well, we've discussed that to death. I ain't calling that loss a negative -- you are. So be it.

We can gnash our teeth about the uncertain future, but I think we are on the verge of something good, and I think the powers that be know that.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible that he thought both Deng and Iggy would both be gone by #7. Of Childress, Snyder, and Jackson, assumedly there at the #7, Jackson would make the most sense in that we need a wing and we need shooters.
> ...


Yeah, I see what you mean, it was a pretty good strategy. In retrospect, the first 5 picks were locks, and Atlanta surprised everyone by picking Childress (who's basically a role player...ouch), so we got Deng.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The guy I'd be worried about the Bulls resigning is Chandler.
> 
> Curry is on all the highlight shows... the average fan is raving about Eddy Curry. (and hinrich, paxson and skiles)
> ...


This post speaks to my fears better than a team of psychiatrists could have. 

Ron, yes, the Chairman gave MJ $35 million and built the Berto Center out of gold bricks with his bare hands and was one of the first owners to buy a private plane etc. etc. etc. 

(P.S. The ERob buyout actually saved the Chairman money -- the cash amount ERob got was incrementally less than what ERob was owed if he'd played it out, and it got the Chairman off the hook for three years' worth of medical insurance, per diems, and the other not inconsiderable benefits that accompany an NBA contract). 

What KK4E and johnston have said is this: every major personnel move the Chairman has signed off on since 1998 looks, smells, and sounds like a salary dump. The next extension he gives to a guy coming off a rookie scale contract will be his first. Forgive me my apprehension, especially when we could get two guys with max offer sheets to match (Dan Rosenbaum's latest post on the potential lockout notwithstanding).

And then you throw in the fact that, given February, the Bulls are not at all a lock to make the playoffs. What if an injury to a key Bulls' player (perish the thought) intervenes and makes it less clear what our future holds?

Talk is one thing. Like I said, I'll rest easy when the signatures are dry and the Bulls issue a press release saying Curry and Chandler have just inked max-year, $X-dollar contracts to stay with the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Jerry and Paxson are at least as familiar with the team as even the intense fan.


I'm not talking about Jerry and Pax's appraisal of Chandler... I'm talking about the rest of the league's willingness to offer Chandler a big deal and JerryR's willingness to lock him up.

I can count on one hand (off the top of my head) the number of guys on the Bulls and Sox that he's signed to large deals over the last 10 years.




> They got Chandler for Brand. You just got done admitting you fear losing Chandler...


Right... and the didn't have to pay Brand the big $$$... the Clips did.



> Crazy Ron, as good as he is when playing, is spending the season playing Foozball in his basement.


And they didn't have to pay him either.



> Miller...well I'd like to have him back.


And they didn't pay him. JerryR wanted the safer play at the time in Rose.



> Crawford? Well, we've discussed that to death. I ain't calling that loss a negative -- you are. So be it.


And he didn't pay him.



> We can gnash our teeth about the uncertain future, but I think we are on the verge of something good, and I think the powers that be know that.


I agree. Jerry R paying what.... 7-8 mil a year (will chandler get offered this?) for someone that comes off the bench and the public is not raving about... i dunno.

I’m not debating right or wrong… everyone has an opinion on that…. But fact remains that not 1 pick has been resigned and our owner does not have a history of handing out long term deals for players on either team he owns.

What happened to Carlos Lee this off-season?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I really don't understand the argument that JR won't pay people. You can really only use the Bulls the past 6 years to find some examples.

He has a budget that he always sticks to. He pays up when contending for a championship. He has always followed this trend. Most owners lose money because basketball is more or less a hobby to them. JR views his clubs as franchises. He has always handled the clubs as a businessman first, fan second.

He wouldn't pay Brand, because Brand threatened to walk after not getting a max extension.

He didn't pay Artest because he was viewed as a disturbance. He didn't pay Miller because we had to give him up to get Rose back AND give Curry playing time. I didn't mind giving up Artest for Rose, but I hated we had to include Miller as well.

Mind you, this is all while we are only winning 20-30 games a season. As an owner, ask whether you would put yourself in a position to have no financial flexibility to a team that can't even sniff the playoffs. I like our financial problems much more than say, New York.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Crawford? Well, we've discussed that to death. I ain't calling that loss a negative -- you are. So be it.





> And he didn't pay him.


Thank God its Zeke paying Jack.

We got Ben, and so far, I like his learning curve.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you trying to start something? 

I'm still too tired from yesterday for Jamal talk.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

what about Jalen Rose? thats always riveting


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you trying to start something?
> ...


:no: No stamina...You should have concentrated more on offseason conditioning.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude, you are chugging the Kool-Aid hard. Clearly, you feel that JR can do no wrong.
> ...


Dude, I didn't even imply, let alone say, that JR can do no wrong. What I very specifically said is that, generally speaking, almost all fans have the same general fear that ScottMay expresses. I share the general fear.

What I don't share is a specific fear that JR, based on his particular history, should be subjected to additional, hightened fear. His history in paying his players, who deserved the money, is practically without a blemish.

Horace Grant? I'll give you that one. So thats one. 

I am worried like any fan, but my worry does not stem from Reinsdorf's ownership. It means nothing to me that he hasn't signed his post-dynasty first round picks.

Brand: Said he wasn't coming back no matter what.

Fizer: :laugh: 

Crawford: Covered ad nauseum

Artest: Traded away in a move that increased salary.

Everyone else: Remains to be seen.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'd also point out that in terms of Grant and Artest there seemed to be a lot of behind-the-scenes strife that hastened their departure.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a good point. I also think the Pacers were only interested in the pick provided that one of the marquee PGs from this draft fell to #7 (since they wanted the #3/Ben Gordon). I also think Pax was willing to deal the pick based on the assumption that Deng would be snapped up before #7 and that he'd most likely be picking Jackson with that pick. I don't think anyone really saw Deng or Iggy falling to where they did.
> ...


That's right. There was also a lot of rumors going around that Bird wanted Luke Jackson at 7. Pax wasn't willing to give up the 3rd to get Harrington. That was made very clear before the draft. And it was obvious he wanted to see if he could get one of his guys Deng or Iguodala at 7 (I don't include Jackson b/c it was clear he would be there) before dealing for Harrington or he would have done the trade *before the draft* like some other teams do in draft trades. 

*If he was thinking long and hard about taking Deng at 3, and he was NOT willing to give that pick up for Harrington, why would he trade the pick if he could get Luol at 7? 
* 
And don't forget one of Pax's stipulations on that trade besides the above, was that Eddie Robinson be included in the deal. So the only way this trade would have happened is if Deng and Iguodala were gone, and Devin Harris or Luke Jackson was still available at 7 for the Pacers. Then there would have been a Harris or Jackson and Eddie Robinson swap for Harrington. A trade that wouldn't have been all bad.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> And now you have taken the bait, as well. A thread discussing why the Bulls have improved so rapidly has morphed into a thread discussing Paxson's alleged non-moves.
> 
> ...


Of your many stellar posts Dan, I may have enjoyed this one the most.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Other than the intense fan... I don't hear many people gushing about Chandler.





> The Chicago Bulls are one of the biggest surprises of this NBA season, and just as startling could be the performance of center Tyson Chandler.
> --
> The second overall pick of the 2001 draft right out of high school is averaging 8.1 points a game and playing a modest 27.2 minutes off the bench. But when it comes to a fourth-quarter lockdown, not one player has done it better this season than Chandler.
> 
> Chandler leads all NBA players in fourth-quarter rebounds (3.29 a game) and blocked shots (0.82). With his long arms, angular 7-1, 235-pound frame and athleticism, he's fast becoming a defensive star.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bulls/2005-01-25-chandler-defense_x.htm


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Brand: Said he wasn't coming back no matter what.


Isn't this speculation at best? I mean, you're all busting DaBullz's chops for his interpretation of media commentary. Can you show some links to this one? I must have missed the press conference Elton held on this one.



> Artest: Traded away in a move that increased salary.


Not really. Forget about what the guys were making when they were traded; look at what they went on to sign their next deals for: Artest ($42 million) and Miller ($67 million) and Mercer and Ollie > whatever was left on Rose's deal + a year of Travis Best and Norm Richardson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

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


I'm glad he's getting some love.

Still... most of the passive fans I talk to don't have much to say about him.... but its a smallish sample... i'll admit.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't this speculation at best? I mean, you're all busting DaBullz's chops for his interpretation of media commentary. Can you show some links to this one? I must have missed the press conference Elton held on this one.



ESPN Magazine doesn't have the link anymore, but the magazine the month after the trade had a small article and Brand was quoted as saying he didn't want to re-sign in Chicago when his contract was up. 

But there is this. 



> "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.


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/jun01/nbawk01s1063001a.asp?format=print

But then again, he would have been a restricted free agent and had to pass up a max contract to take the one year Q offer to really get out.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The issue has become much more critical than it was when were losing, I'm afraid.
> ...


Scott, I along with most here probably hear ya on this. The thing is, do we really need to openly worry about and discuss what hasn't happened yet? We've got half a season to go before this is even addressed. Factor in the CBA and not only might our resolution be delayed, but the CBA may make it even easier for us to keep Chandler and Curry in the fold. For now I'll keep the faith that ownership will do the right thing. If however the time comes and they don't, I'll happily join the "lets get a real owner club".


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Scott, I along with most here probably hear ya on this. The thing is, do we really need to openly worry about and discuss what hasn't happened yet? We've got half a season to go before this is even addressed. Factor in the CBA and not only might our resolution be delayed, but the CBA may make it even easier for us to keep Chandler and Curry in the fold. For now I'll keep the faith that ownership will do the right thing. If however the time comes and they don't, I'll happily join the "lets get a real owner club".


I figure it's as relevant as anything else we discuss here, particularly when it seems like there are an awful lot of congratulatory "boy, we've got that losing thing licked!" posts these days.

Everything can change in the blink of an eye.



> But then again, he would have been a restricted free agent and had to pass up a max contract to take the one year Q offer to really get out.


Exactly . . . the fear of Brand not re-signing may have played a role in his being traded, but I strongly doubt it was the primary factor.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't this speculation at best? I mean, you're all busting DaBullz's chops for his interpretation of media commentary. Can you show some links to this one? I must have missed the press conference Elton held on this one.
> ...



There were links, as someone else pointed out. I don't have them, but I'm not basing this on an interpretation of anything. I read direct quotes from Brand expressly stating he was demanding a trade and had no intention of re-signing.

As to your second point, Miller and Artest were not worth those contracts based on their play for the Bulls. They earned those based on the significant improvements they made after the trade. At the time, the deal was a salary spike.

Like I said, I don't blame you for being concerned. I just think its obvious that any special fear because JR is the owner is illogical.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> I read direct quotes from Brand expressly stating he was demanding a trade and had no intention of re-signing.


You are talking about Brand and the Clippers, right?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said, I don't blame you for being concerned. I just think its obvious that any special fear because JR is the owner is illogical.


If its illogical then answer these....

Over the last 10 years, on the White Sox and Bulls, name the players that Uncle Jerry has signed to a long term, big money (defined as close-to MAX for BB, upper 20% in baseball) deal.

How many of these guys are all-league caliber?

Is Tyson considered in the same league as these guys?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> You are talking about Brand and the Clippers, right?


Funny.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> If its illogical then answer these....
> ...


First, I do not follow the White Sox at all, nor do I care about American League Baseball. So to the extent the handling of that team is influencing people's opinions of JR, I can't respond to that. 

Basketball? First, "max" contacts have only been in existence for 6 years, and during that time JR has signed none, but paid one - Rose.

Prior to that, he paid dearly for the Championship Bulls which, as I stipulated to earlier, was a no-brainer for which he probably doesn't deserve any special credit.

Who is "these guys"? Chandler is not a max player, if that is what you are asking me.

Did I answer your questions?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> Everything can change in the blink of an eye.


Yes, everything can change in the blink of an eye. 

Maybe this team crashes and burns in the second half. 

Maybe this team has an incredible second half and does well in the playoffs making signings a no-brainer.

Maybe an offer comes along before the deadline and one of them is gone for a deal of our liking. 

Maybe the CBA changes and makes signing both a no-brainer (which I think shorter contract terms would). 

Maybe Reinsdorf sells his stake or no longer acts as managing partner due to health reasons. 

A million and one other things could happen between now and then.



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> it seems like there are an awful lot of congratulatory "boy, we've got that losing thing licked!" posts these days.


You saying you can't stand the prosperity? 

I think I remember reading a post from you just the other day saying you loved this team! :yes:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> First, I do not follow the White Sox at all, nor do I care about American League Baseball. So to the extent the handling of that team is influencing people's opinions of JR, I can't respond to that.
> ...


Off the top of my head... the answers are these.

Michael Jordan (greatest player ever)
Scottie Pippen (top 50 all-time player) -- and only this was for a sign and trade after years of animosity
Frank Thomas -- MVP of baseball
Albert Belle -- MVP of baseball

That's it as far as I can remember. Please add to the list if I'm forgetting someone.

He's let players like Jack McDowell, Alex Fernandez, Horace Grant... and others just walk away. 

8-9 mil a year plus raises for Chandler across multiple years? For a guy that comes off the bench and has a bad back history? 

Maybe I'm being too nervous... but I don't think "illogical" would be the correct word to use.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

One major difference is that we can afford to sign Chandler and Curry near max contracts and only slightly be in the luxury tax range in the '05-06 season. This was one of the reasons I wanted to trade Crawford, was for the reassurance that we would sign Curry and Chandler, knowing how JR operates.

JR won't pay into the luxury chance unless it is for a shot at the championship. Obviously, we are at the very least 2 years away from this happening.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> One major difference is that we can afford to sign Chandler and Curry near max contracts and only slightly be in the luxury tax range in the '05-06 season. This was one of the reasons I wanted to trade Crawford, was for the reassurance that we would sign Curry and Chandler, knowing how JR operates.
> 
> JR won't pay into the luxury chance unless it is for a shot at the championship. Obviously, we are at the very least 2 years away from this happening.



And it looks like everything is falling into place quite nicely.

That Pax interview on AM1000 was music to my ears.

How could everything be going so good?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Maybe I'm being too nervous... but I don't think "illogical" would be the correct word to use.


Fair enough.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I think that Paxson thought long and hard about this deal, but then decided against it. I think the press accounts capture him at various points in this decision-making process. I do not like Harrington's game at all, so this would have been an easy one for me, but I respect anyone who would have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this deal. #7 picks rarely end up as good as Luol Deng.


Rarely, perhaps.

What pick # was Hinrich?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Rarely, perhaps.
> 
> What pick # was Hinrich?


Here are the last 15 #7 picks: Deng, Hinrich, Nene, E. Griffen, Mihm, R. Hamilton, J. Williams, T. Thomas, L. Wright, D. Stoudamire, L. Murray, B. Hurley, W. Williams, L. Longley, L. Simmons.

Paxson may have drafted the best two players at #7 in the last 15 drafts. Harrington for the average guy on this list seems a pretty good trade to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> As to your second point, Miller and Artest were not worth those contracts based on their play for the Bulls. They earned those based on the significant improvements they made after the trade. At the time, the deal was a salary spike.
> 
> Like I said, I don't blame you for being concerned. I just think its obvious that any special fear because JR is the owner is illogical.


Miller (Bulls)
12.7 PPG/8.4 RPG/2.1 APG
Miller (Sacto, this season)
14.0 PPG/8.9 RPG/3.7 APG

Artest (Bulls)
15.6 PPG/4.9RPG/2.9APG
Artest (Indy, last season)
18.3 PPG/5.3RPG/3.7APG

Are the improvements as significant as you remember?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Miller (Bulls)
> ...


Was Artest a significantly better player in an Indy uni (Conference Finalist) as opposed to a Bulls uni (bottom feeder)? Seriously?

BTW, before getting tossed for the year - 25ppg 6rpg 2spg and a former DPOY...not at all like the Artest in a Bulls uni.

Same argument holds water for Miller...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Was Artest a significantly better player in an Indy uni (Conference Finalist) as opposed to a Bulls uni (bottom feeder)? Seriously?


Indy was better. Was Artest? He played ~7 more minutes per game and his stats don't show some huge or dramatic improvement that suggests he's suddenly worth a massive pay raise. Or he was worth the pay raise as a bull.

You won't get DPOY for a 15 win team. You will get DPOY for a 60 win team.



> BTW, before getting tossed for the year - 25ppg 6rpg 2spg and a former DPOY...not at all like the Artest in a Bulls uni.


7 games? Yeah, for those 7 games, he played way better than he ever did.



> Same argument holds water for Miller...


Right. Miller played ~7 more minutes/game for Sacto.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head... the answers are these.
> ...


Michael Jordan --- JR paid huge sum when the time came (beside it was MJ's line that insists that once you sign the contract, you honor it no matter what. He was sign till the end of 95-96 (?) )

Scottie Pippen --- Again he was signed till the end of 97-98 if I remember correct. It was JR who opposed the initial long-term contract warning Pip since JR never re-negotiate the signed contract no matter what. JR explained it clearly and Pip went and get signed long term deal for the sake of financial security. Pip started to complain about contract somewhere middle of his contract and of course JR said NO. By the time Bulls were on their second three-peat, because of new bargaining arrangement (at that time) team couldn't re-negotiate player's contract till the end of contract year (I could be wrong but this was my understanding).
After the end of dynasty, JR actually went out and gave him sign-and-trade so he can get more money especailly Bulls was on rebuilding mode and Pip wasn't the part of their plan. If MJ stayed that time, JR probably paid huge contract all but short length.

Frank Thomas --- IMHO most-overrated SOX ever. Always cry over contract. Every time somebody got bigger contract, he always pouted "New contract", "new contract". Beside when Thomas signed his ridiculous long-term deal, he was one of highest paid player in the league at that time. It wasn't like JR didn't pay him. It was like every other player got ridiculous contract every single year after Thomas signed his contract. Not JR's fault.

Albert Belle --- Isn't JR the one who made Belle the most highest paid non-pitcher player in the league in the history of the league at the time of signing? 

So all the example you mentioned actually represent the opposite case. AM I wrong?

Personally, I think JR will re-sign both of them. It won't be smooth negotiation. That wasn't JR's style at all but it will be foolish not to re-sign both of them if they keep playing the way they have played lately. Foolish? JR is not.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> Foolish? JR is not.


Foolish, no. Cheap,  .


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Indy was better. Was Artest? He played ~7 more minutes per game and his stats don't show some huge or dramatic improvement that suggests he's suddenly worth a massive pay raise. Or he was worth the pay raise as a bull.
> 
> You won't get DPOY for a 15 win team. You will get DPOY for a 60 win team.
> ...


Who were they sharing the ball with in Indy/Sac?

What was the level of competition in Indy/Sac?

6 minutes more per game doesn't buy you near as much opportunity when you're surrounded by a significantly higher level of talent. Not only are you sharing the ball among more competent scorers, you're battling against more competent rebounders. Thats just common sense. 

Then theres the little matter of most/all your minutes being played under competitive game conditions unlike the Bulls who were usually playing to a double digit deficit with the faithful heading to the exits after the third quarter with the game long since decided.

You're pointing out the difference when it advances your viewpoint - *"You won't get DPOY for a 15 win team. You will get DPOY for a 60 win team."* and ignoring it for the rest of the argument.

As for the 7 games to start this year, isn't it just possible he was on his way to a career year or is that unthinkable since it doesn't square with your pov?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Who were they sharing the ball with in Indy/Sac?
> ...


It sure looks to me like Artest and Miller were already proving themselves to be pretty good players. They did play with a 12.3 PPG scoring Fizer, a 16.8 PPG Ron Mercer, and 35 minutes of Curry+Chandler (~9 RPG combined).

As for Artest this year, nobody knows if he'd be having his best year this year or not. For 7 games he was terrific, and that's all we can know for sure. Given his past performance, you can deduce he might not have kept it up (heck, Kobe scored 40+ for like 10 straight games two seasons ago, if memory serves correctly, but didn't average 40 for the season).

Heck, even Ben Gordon has his ups and downs - 7, 7, 31, 16, 17, 5, 5, and 5 points over a 8 game stretch.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!


----------

