# Thomas : "There's no way possible I shouldn't be playing 30-35 min"



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*AGENT FOR CHANGE*: Current exiled Bull Tim Thomas, in attendance last night, said his agent has talked to the Nets about joining them if he is bought out of his contract by Chicago. The former Knick forward played in just three games for the Bulls before leaving the team. If the Bulls can't trade him by the Feb. 23 trading deadline, they may buy him out.
*
POTENTIAL NET :* ex-Knick and Paterson native Tim Thomas sat courtside Friday night. He's a member of the Chicago Bulls, but he's been away from the team as it tries to either trade him or buy him out of his contract. If the latter happens, the Nets would be interested in signing him. The interest is mutual. Thomas said the Nets have talked to his agent.

*"There's a lot of talk about New Jersey," Thomas said. "The Nets, they've been talking. But it's in Chicago's hands."
*
*Thomas also said the Spurs were a possibility, but it is all up to Chicago.*

*Paterson native Tim Thomas was seated in the second row last night,* still being paid by Chicago to stay home, still very anxious to get back to work, still befuddled by the Bulls' refusal to let him take part in what has been a disappointing season.

*"To tell a veteran player that he's going to have a hard time playing for you ... I look around and see there's no way possible I shouldn't be playing 30, 35 minutes a game at any position he can play me in," the former Knick said of Chicago coach Scott Skiles. "But things happen, I'm ready to move forward. *I wish something would happen sooner than later instead of sitting around. I'd rather be playing."

If Thomas can manage a buyout with the Bulls -- and he has roughly $6 million still coming to him this season -- he identified the Nets and *Spurs *as two teams he'd like to play for.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

> "There's no way possible I shouldn't be playing 30-35 min"


of what?


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

he's got a point. don't know about the 30-35 min/game comment, but the bulls could sure use him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Tampering?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Tampering?


Can a player tamper with himself? (insert masturbation joke here)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Can a player tamper with himself? (insert masturbation joke here)


*his agent has talked to the Nets* about joining them if he is bought out of his contract by Chicago

the Nets would be interested in signing him. The interest is mutual. Thomas said *the Nets have talked to his agent.*

"There's a lot of talk about New Jersey," Thomas said. "The Nets, *they've been talking*. But it's in Chicago's hands."


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Can a player tamper with himself? (insert masturbation joke here)


I've heard Tim Thomas can stroke it with the best of them. :angel:


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Timmy is a me-player who's 6'10" but has absolutely no game anywhere near the basket. We have more than enough shooters who are better than Tim and the last thing we need is a whiny one with a huge contract. I'd take Pargo and his contract over Tim and his--they both have the same game, but Pargo does it better.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The Bulls should have suited him up and gave him the minutes,at least long enough to have gotten something resembling a decent offer.You can't really expect anyone to give you anything for a player you don't even want.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Diable said:


> The Bulls should have suited him up and gave him the minutes,at least long enough to have gotten something resembling a decent offer.You can't really expect anyone to give you anything for a player you don't even want.



The value of Tim Thomas is not in his play. It is in his big, fat expiring contract. That doesn't change regardless of whether he is on the floor. He's been in the league a long time. He does not need to be showcased.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Sounds like Tim "no way possible I shouldn't be playing 30, 35 minutes a game" Thomas wouldn't be a distraction getting some occasional bench minutes behind Deng/Noc. Nope, not a problem at all.

Pax and Skiles really missed the boat when they decided to alienate him.

And to think how much handwringing there was over this guy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> *his agent has talked to the Nets* about joining them if he is bought out of his contract by Chicago
> 
> the Nets would be interested in signing him. The interest is mutual. Thomas said *the Nets have talked to his agent.*
> 
> "There's a lot of talk about New Jersey," Thomas said. "The Nets, *they've been talking*. But it's in Chicago's hands."


I don't think talking trade is tampering, DaBullz.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think talking trade is tampering, DaBullz.


I don't either, but talking to him about signing as a FA while under contract to the Bulls IS.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Move him to Houston, since you need some PF, for Stro Swift, Norris, Wesley, Derek Anderson and a 2nd rounder from them, for Sweetney, Tim Thomas, Pike and Pargo...

In Houston, I'm sure that JVG will like Sweetney, Tim Thomas will backup their SF position, and Pike and Pargo can help also... 

Swift may pair well with Tyson in Chicago... Wesley and DA may help this team, while Norris is only a cap throw-in, and will be in inactive list, like TT actually is!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> of what?


Cribbage.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Zuca said:


> Move him to Houston, since you need some PF, for Stro Swift, Norris, Wesley, Derek Anderson and a 2nd rounder from them, for Sweetney, Tim Thomas, Pike and Pargo...
> 
> In Houston, I'm sure that JVG will like Sweetney, Tim Thomas will backup their SF position, and Pike and Pargo can help also...
> 
> Swift may pair well with Tyson in Chicago... Wesley and DA may help this team, while Norris is only a cap throw-in, and will be in inactive list, like TT actually is!


No, not at all. Wesley- another undersized guard and a fossil. Anderson- nothing. Norris- Small guard and a fossil. Swift- awful. You can tell from what he has (or hasn't) done this year that he is nowhere near the player the rockets thought he was. There would be absolutely no point in doing this. We're basically taking the Rockets' retirement home off their hands. This would be like the Rockets saying "our big offseason signing was Swift, and we admit we made a huge mistake, so let's unload him and three guys who will retire at the all star break on another team."


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

If Pax cant even get a second round pick for Thomas then this is another failure by Pax. You dont buy out this guy's contract and let him go wherever he wants just because thats what he wants. You atleast get a second rounder for him.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

And how exactly would that work out? Wouldn't we have to take on contracts that match the salary of TT?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> If Pax cant even get a second round pick for Thomas then this is another failure by Pax. You dont buy out this guy's contract and let him go wherever he wants just because thats what he wants. You atleast get a second rounder for him.


Would a max salary for 2nd rounder trade work under trade checker?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> Would a max salary for 2nd rounder trade work under trade checker?


 It would not work I know that, but I am just saying that some team will have a need for him and you have to atleast get something anything in return for him. The Bulls have paid him all season to just sit at home and watch TV.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

A trade that would work financialy would be sending Tim Thomas to Memphis for Jake Tsakalitis, Lorenzen Wright and Antonio Burks. I can see Memphis doing this if the Bulls trow in their own #1 pick, I can see this trade kinda helping us out with Size we then are only stuck with one bad contract and that would be Jake for one more year but hes a 7'2 guy who can help out a bit. Wright Comes off the Books after this season, Tim Thomas would help out Memphis abit with some more scoring. Antonio Burks and Jake would come off the books for the 2007 FA period not bad. 
2007 is going to be a good year for FA's.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Outrageous.

These pro athletes nowadays and their sense of entitlement.

Wanting to work for their money instead of sitting around and collecting a paycheck.

It sure was not like this back in the day.

Man, TT, what a slug.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

the whole TT setting out is complete BS.let me first that this gay *** "JIB" crap has got to stop.going by what "JIB" means 
jordon(punched his team mate,had a major ego ect)
pippen(set out that one game,also had a huge ego ect)
barkley(big mouth,ego)
KG(also punched his team mate)
along with most of the top 50 players of all time(hell just about any player thats any good for that matter) would be eliminated from playing for this team or pax and most of the posters would be hypocrites.

also whats wrong with the "JIB" poster boy KH?why isnt his "JIB" helping the team out more?

TT SHOULD be playing 30-35min a game,and telling everyone that you are going to cut him on the 24th if no trades are made is just shooting yourself in the foot becuase why in hell would a team trade something usefull and spend 14mil on a player when they can just wait a few weeks and get him for the league min?

[edit] JIB
[edit] JOHN PAXSON
[edit] KH
AND A VERY BIG [edit] YOU TO SCOTT SKILES :curse: :curse: :curse:


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Nobody's faulting TT for simply wanting to play. People are rather taking issue with the fact that it's now apparent that he would have put up a stink if he wasn't getting his 30-35 minutes. I mean, the guy basically thinks he should be getting more minutes than either Deng or Noc. Would you rather see TT on the floor than Deng or Noc? I certainly wouldn't. If TT would've been ready to accept the role that his play dictated, this wouldn't have transpired. I simply can't imagine TT accepting a 20 mpg role on this team or god forbid an occasional DNP-CD if he was really stinking it up. It's unfortunate because we could've certainly used him in such a role.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

bbertha37 said:


> Nobody's faulting TT for simply wanting to play. People are rather taking issue with the fact that it's now apparent that he would have put up a stink if he wasn't getting his 30-35 minutes. I mean, the guy basically thinks he should be getting more minutes than either Deng or Noc. Would you rather see TT on the floor than Deng or Noc? I certainly wouldn't. If TT would've been ready to accept the role that his play dictated, this wouldn't have transpired. I simply can't imagine TT accepting a 20 mpg role on this team or god forbid an occasional DNP-CD if he was really stinking it up. It's unfortunate because we could've certainly used him in such a role.


i can think of many games this season that i rather would have TT in then Deng.TT is a 28-29 year old 6-10 big that can nail the 3,and give you a few boards a game.heres a ideal insteed of letting all these NBDL players,OH,MA ect get some burn time why not let some one in that can really score,and that atleast the last time i checked is how you win basketball games..

why is it ok for TC to get all the time he wants when he only boards and doesnt work at all in the offseason,yet TT is basicly cut becouse he doesnt go 100% in meanless practices and plays subpar D?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Maybe TT would have been better than Deng or Noc or Othella or Gordon or whoever. 

We never got a chance to find out.

On a losing, starless team like ours, I don't think any of our players deserve to be penciled in for 30-35 a night.

I think Scott Skiles would agree with this statement.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Outrageous.
> 
> These pro athletes nowadays and their sense of entitlement.
> 
> ...


What's hilarious about this, is that even when TT did come to work, he never he came close to earning his paycheck. What a slug indeed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> What's hilarious about this, is that even when TT did come to work, he never he came close to earning his paycheck. What a slug indeed.


Neither does AD.

How many other NBA basketball teams would this happen on? None.

What a bizarre, losing environment Paxson created.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> *On a losing, starless team like ours, I don't think any of our players deserve to be penciled in for 30-35 a night.
> *
> I think Scott Skiles would agree with this statement.


And if you look at TT's quote, he clearly thinks he should be penciled in for 30-35 a night. That's the issue.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Neither does AD.


AD's 37 years old and looking to possibly retire after this season. Physically, he's simply not capable of doing the things on the court that he used to do. On the other hand, TT's only 29 and has the athletic tools and skills of a full-fledged all-star. What's his excuse for his play during the past 6 years?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> And if you look at TT's quote, he clearly thinks he should be penciled in for 30-35 a night. That's the issue.


I think you are reading too much into that quote.

TT has only averaged more than 30 minutes a night 1 season in his career, and this kind of weird, amateur-hour situation that Paxson created has never happened before.

A MAX player wanting to earn his keep by playing as much as he can. What a punk.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

bbertha37 said:


> And if you look at TT's quote, he clearly thinks he should be penciled in for 30-35 a night. That's the issue.


NO,the real issue is that he never got a chance to earn anytime on the floor,and the fact that the bulls have a player of TT's talents just wasting away at home when the team could use a player like him badly..


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

How could they use him? As another ball-hogging 3 point shooter? He's like Pargo in a bigger man's body--run up court and shoot immediately.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Neither does AD.
> 
> How many other NBA basketball teams would this happen on? None.
> 
> What a bizarre, losing environment Paxson created.


You're being totally hypothetical with your first point and have no way of supporting it. 

As for your second point, could you please provide evidence that Paxson has created a "bizarre, losing environment"? Honestly I can't even guess at what examples you might bring up to support this point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> AD's 37 years old and looking to possibly retire after this season. Physically, he's simply not capable of doing the things on the court that he used to do. On the other hand, TT's only 29 and has the athletic tools and skills of a full-fledged all-star. What's his excuse for his play during the past 6 years?


TT has been and is a good NBA player. We could use a few more guys like that on our losing team.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> TT has been and is a good NBA player. We could use a few more guys like that on our losing team.


And a huge underachiever. With his kind of size and talent he should be a franchise player, but all he's ever wanted to do is spot up and take threes.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> TT has been and is a good NBA player. We could use a few more guys like that on our losing team.


TT is a good player. What has he done in the last several years to merit such praise? You are the first person I heard that's said that.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I find it hard to believe some of you are berating him for his team-killing attitude and at the same time saying we could really use him right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> As for your second point, could you please provide evidence that Paxson has created a "bizarre, losing environment"? Honestly I can't even guess at what examples you might bring up to support this point.


This TT situation is bizarre. When have you heard about a perfectly healthy and eager to play MAX player that his teammates agree was not a problem being told to stay home? Most NBA teams choose wins and losses over a backwards, failed ideology.

As for the losing, go to any major sports website, click NBA and then click Standings. Search for Chicago.

Or, go to databasebasketball.com and add up our wins and losses for the last 3 years. Take your pick.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

All I have to say is,

You know things are bad when TIM THOMAS is the miracle cure.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> I find it hard to believe some of you are berating him for his team-killing attitude and at the same time saying we could really use him right now.


um lets see,we are a 21-28 team in the weak east.our main prob's are being undersized and scorein.yeah TT fits in as he is 6-10 and can score..


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> TT has only averaged more than 30 minutes a night 1 season in his career, and this kind of weird, amateur-hour situation that Paxson created has never happened before.
> 
> A MAX player wanting to earn his keep by playing as much as he can. What a punk.


I can recall a similar situation occuring last season with Glenn Robinson and and the 76ers. I believe he pouted about losing his starting spot to Iggy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> TT is a good player. What has he done in the last several years to merit such praise? You are the first person I heard that's said that.


Just look at his personal stats and the teams he's played on.

He's also been on 5 playoff teams in his NBA career (4 more than, say, Hinrich) and on 3 of them he averaged 25+ minutes.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I can recall a similar situation occuring last season with Glenn Robinson and 76ers. I believe he pouted about losing his starting spot to Iggy.


Some washed up vet like Robinson?

Nah, that's not TT at all.




Although, the World Champion Spurs didn't have a problem quickly picking up that cancer and playing him 9 minutes a game in the playoffs. What do the Spurs know though? Their jib is so cloudy.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bulls said:


> um lets see,we are a 21-28 team in the weak east.our main prob's are being undersized and scorein.yeah TT fits in as he is 6-10 and can score..


Thomas's doesn't utilize his size at all. He would be the same if he were 5'10". All he does is spot up for threes. His size wouldn't help us--it's not about size, it's about what you can accomplish with that size.

And if more three-pointers is the type of scoring you want, well... that's probably the last kind of scoring we need.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> This TT situation is bizarre. When have you heard about a perfectly healthy and eager to play MAX player that his teammates agree was not a problem being told to stay home? Most NBA teams choose wins and losses over a backwards, failed ideology.
> 
> As for the losing, go to any major sports website, click NBA and then click Standings. Search for Chicago.
> 
> Or, go to databasebasketball.com and add up our wins and losses for the last 3 years. Take your pick.


So every GM who has a losing record with his current team can be accused of creating a losing environment? Does that apply to Isiah as well? Conversly does a GM who inherits a talented squad create a winning environment?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just look at his personal stats and the teams he's played on.
> 
> He's also been on 5 playoff teams in his NBA career (4 more than, say, Hinrich) and on 3 of them he averaged 25+ minutes.


Great argument, because Hinrich has been playing long enough to be in the playoffs five times, and has also been surrounded by the same kind of talent.

Tyronn Lue won the championship with the Lakers. That's more titles than all of our guys combined. Let's sign him.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> So every GM who has a losing record with his current team can be accused of creating a losing environment? Does that apply to Isiah as well? Conversly does a GM who inherits a talented squad create a winning environment?


Bingo, in fact Pax took the losing environment and turned it into a winning one last year-- heck at the rate the last pre-Paxon years went, we would be celebrating the record we have now.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:
 

> Some washed up vet like Robinson?
> 
> Nah, that's not TT at all.
> 
> ...


Hey, I wouldn't mind playing TT 10-15 mpg. I'm sure Pax and Skiles wouldn't have a problem with that at all. But then again, "There's no way possible I shouldn't be playing 30-35 min."


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> Thomas's doesn't utilize his size at all. He would be the same if he were 5'10". All he does is spot up for threes. His size wouldn't help us--it's not about size, it's about what you can accomplish with that size.
> 
> And if more three-pointers is the type of scoring you want, well... that's probably the last kind of scoring we need.


thats about all peja does,but ill bet NO ONE would want him sent home,so whats really the prob with TT?


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Some washed up vet like Robinson?
> 
> Nah, that's not TT at all.


I wonder what TT will fetch on the FA market this summer. I mean, he's not washed up or anything. What do you think, K4E?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

bbertha37 said:


> Hey, I wouldn't mind playing TT 10-15 mpg. I'm sure Pax and Skiles wouldn't have a problem with that at all. But then again, "There's no way possible I shouldn't be playing 30-35 min."



TT was traded to us on 10/4/05 and has played a total of 32mins with the bulls,so i would say PAX and SS both have a problem with TT playing..


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bulls said:


> thats about all peja does,but ill bet NO ONE would want him sent home,so whats really the prob with TT?


Obviously, Skiles has his reasons. They didn't send him home because of how he plays--nobody said they did. Therefore, Peja has nothing to do with this, but for the record, he wouldn't help us either, because he also doesn't utilize his size and just shoots threes. I don't really get your point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> So every GM who has a losing record with his current team can be accused of creating a losing environment? Does that apply to Isiah as well? Conversly does a GM who inherits a talented squad create a winning environment?


No, yes, no.

Paxson has been on the job for 3 years now and his current team are all players he either drafted or signed. 

Paxson has a career losing record and this season's squad of crystal clear Paxson jib players is stinking it up. We're an afterthought.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

bbertha37 said:


> I wonder what TT will fetch on the FA market this summer. I mean, he's not washed up or anything. What do you think, K4E?



after what pax and SS has done i would say he'll be luckly to get the MLE.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bbertha37 said:


> I wonder what TT will fetch on the FA market this summer. I mean, he's not washed up or anything. What do you think, K4E?


Let's hope we trade him, and that won't be an option. There has to be some team that will bite on him for the whole "potential" factor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> Great argument, because Hinrich has been playing long enough to be in the playoffs five times, and has also been surrounded by the same kind of talent.


Just saying that TT may have some type of clue about performing and winning in the NBA, since he's been a heavy minute player on a number of playoff teams.

He has logged more playoff minutes than any player on the Bulls and its not even close.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just saying that TT may have some type of clue about performing and winning in the NBA, since he's been a heavy minute player on a number of playoff teams.
> 
> He has more playoff experience than any player on the Bulls and its not even close, expect for O-YEAH.


Again, why losing AD was bigger than losing Eddy.

TT also has a clue about how to screw up some chemistry. Just because he's played a long time doesn't mean he's a positive influence.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> As for your second point, could you please provide evidence that Paxson has created a "bizarre, losing environment"? Honestly I can't even guess at what examples you might bring up to support this point.


Well, for one thing, we have a LOSING record. Also, Pax has traded away the only true center we've had on this team since God knows when. Maybe since Artis was around, which wasn't a year ago if I'm correct. Also, he traded away our only leader in AD. So now we're stuck with a bunch of young role players who can't do nothing to help our team. Plus we're at best a mediocre team right now. It's boring basketball to watch and they are just NOT consistent enough to win games. THAT to me is a losing environment.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I wonder what TT will fetch on the FA market this summer. I mean, he's not washed up or anything. What do you think, K4E?


He'll be playing on a team next season to earn his money, not sitting around an apartment.

He'll probably be the only current Bull to be in the playoffs this season.


TT is no star. But he's a capable NBA player. Other NBA teams will want him on their team. 

Successful teams, unlike ours, are talking about wanting him to play for their team this season.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> Again, why losing AD was bigger than losing Eddy.
> 
> TT also has a clue about how to screw up some chemistry. Just because he's played a long time doesn't mean he's a *positive influence*.


these are grown *** men for peats sake.if they are influenced by someone then its there own dam fault.IVE never heard a grown man say"well judge,so and so influenced me to take thos durgs,or rob that old ladie"you know why?becuase when you reach a certain age you are responsible for YOU..


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bulls said:


> these are grown *** men for peats sake.if they are influenced by someone then its there own dam fault.IVE never heard a grown man say"well judge,so and so influenced me to take thos durgs,or rob that old ladie"you know why?becuase when you reach a certain age you are responsible for YOU..


So then with your logic, how did TO have such a huge negative effect on the Eagles?

We're talking influence as in team chemistry, not robbing old ladies.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, yes, no.
> 
> Paxson has been on the job for 3 years now and his current team are all players he either drafted or signed.
> 
> Paxson has a career losing record and this season's squad of crystal clear Paxson jib players is stinking it up. We're an afterthought.


I don't think talent evaluation = creating a losing environment. 

Also, I think you might consider that the first season Pax had the job he inherited a team that had been the worst in basketball for the previous 5 season. Even Jerry West couldn't overcome that in one season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Also, I think you might consider that the first season Pax had the job he inherited a team that had been the worst in basketball for the previous 5 season. Even Jerry West couldn't overcome that in one season.


Paxson felt otherwise. He guaranteed playoffs that season.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I don't think there's any Bulls fan that can honestly think Paxson has created a "losing environment."

We were in a losing environment, and he brought us out of it.

It's not a losing environment if you are disappointed with a losing record.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> So then with your logic, how did TO have such a huge negative effect on the Eagles?


OMG,ive never heard of TT doing anything even close to what TO did.lets see at worse TT is a shot chunker,at worse TO is the devil to his team mates.

TO is a winey cry baby that when he didnt get his way he started TRYING to screw the team up.

TT since he's been here from what ive read has been nothing but class.he's never said anything bad about anyone within the bulls,even when he is the one getting screwd in the long run he hasnt said anything to hurt the bulls.he's been like"fine you dont want here,thats cool.ill just pick up my check and stay out of your way"


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson felt otherwise. He guaranteed playoffs that season.


But who cares? Paxson is a lousy GM so his predictions should not be used as your standard of GM competentcy.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bulls said:


> OMG,ive never heard of TT doing anything even close to what TO did.lets see at worse TT is a shot chunker,at worse TO is the devil to his team mates.


TT obviously did enough that Skiles and Pax didn't want him around. You know how much Skiles and Pax love their chemistry.

He didn't have to be at TO's level of negativity to still be a negative influence.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> TT obviously did enough that Skiles and Pax didn't want him around. You know how much Skiles and Pax love their chemistry.
> 
> He didn't have to be at TO's level of negativity to still be a negative influence.


when did you read anything about TT being a negative influence on the team?one week SS said TT was working hard in practice,then the next week he wasnt giveing 110% in practice so they sent him home for that reason.i never heard anything about any negative influence..


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bulls said:


> the next he wasnt giveing 110% so they sent him home for that reason.


HIGHLY doubtful that was why. That would mean that in their eyes every player in history except maybe Jordan deserves to be sent home. There was obviously something else going on behind the scenes.

He's a me-player anyway, and doesn't fit in with our team concept.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> HIGHLY doubtful that was why. That would mean that in their eyes every player in history except maybe Jordan deserves to be sent home. There was obviously something else going on behind the scenes.
> 
> He's a me-player anyway, and doesn't fit in with our team concept.


this "team concept" has failed.we are 21-28 with 33 games to go.if we win 100% of the remaining 33 thats puts us at 54-28 thats a great record but the odds of that happening is like 1:1000000000000.if we split the remaining 33 that puts us at 38-44 not very good but even thats like 1:100 to happen.so how can you say a team concept that nets your team a 33-38 win season is a good one?

im sorry but i cant..

you take away last season(only reson we won was because of the rooks)and john is one of the worse GM's in the nba,same goes for SS.so how the hell can you suport these guys?

o wait its becuase john has set this team up with great cap space,YEAH IN ONE OF THE WORSE FA CROPS EVER.o but he could use it for trades DOUBTFULL unless its a sure thing and how many GM's are going to just hand us a sure thing for cap space in one of the WORSE FA CROPS EVER?why do you think a trade hasnt happend yet?or even being worked on.

but what about those draft picks,past the top 5 this draft SUCKS and will only net us yet even more role players.so now tell me just what in hell has john and scott done to help this team?o yeah i forgot they put "JIB" in our "TEAM CONCEPT"


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

bulls said:


> this "team concept" has failed.we are 21-28 with 33 games to go.if we win 100% of the remaining 33 thats puts us at 54-28 thats a great record but the odds of that happening is like 1:1000000000000.if we split the remaining 33 that puts us at 38-44 not very good but even thats like 1:100 to happen.so how can you say a team concept that nets your team a 33-38 win season is a good one?
> 
> im sorry but i cant..
> 
> ...


Didn't say it was a good one. But it worked last year, and with the right personnell it could work--but Tim isn't one of those people.

If you want to go back a few years, with Jamal taking it up and immediately firing over two defenders every single time... be my guest.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

giantkiller7 said:


> Didn't say it was a good one. *But it worked last year*, and with the right personnell it could work--but Tim isn't one of those people.
> 
> If you want to go back a few years, with Jamal taking it up and immediately firing over two defenders every single time... be my guest.


the onlything that worked last year was teams didnt know what gordon,deng,and DH could do.so we had surprise on our side and it worked(i called a 45 win season in the preseason based on this and ppl laughed at me)

this year we didnt have surprise because teams knew what to expect from thos 3(i called a 35 win season this year in the perseason based on this also so far its looking good)

and if you dont think the "team concept" is a good one they why are you so Against giveing TT a shot?i know why SS and PAx would be against beucase it would make them look like hypocrites,but why are so many fans hatein on TT,yet giving love to TC,EC,JC,SONG,Peja ect when they are all the same type of player but in diff fourms?

at this point is the season would it be such a bad thing to shake things up and give TT a shot?what could it really hurt? at best you add someone to the team that helps add more wins and gets a buzz going that just might get you more in a trade,or at worse he helps nothing in either case we have nothing to lose but could stand to gain quite a bit...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

bulls said:


> these are grown *** men for peats sake.if they are influenced by someone then its there own dam fault.IVE never heard a grown man say"well judge,so and so influenced me to take thos durgs,or rob that old ladie"you know why?becuase when you reach a certain age you are responsible for YOU..


Insert Terrell Owens Segue here...........or even ROn Artest Segue.....

Yeah...there are no such things as team cancers in this world.

Fact is there are certain players that are bona-fide team killers. 

Its hardly surprising that some of the same people that wanted Jalen "the human Cancer" Rose around, when he was CLEARLY hurting the team, are now wishing for sunnier days with tim thomas. Not surprising at all.......


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Jalen "the human Cancer" Rose


Its interesting that the Toronto Raptors fans didn't feel the same way about Jalen on the way out.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

bulls said:


> TT since he's been here from what ive read has been nothing but class.he's never said anything bad about anyone within the bulls,even when he is the one getting screwd in the long run he hasnt said anything to hurt the bulls.he's been like"fine you dont want here,thats cool.ill just pick up my check and stay out of your way"


WTF is wrong with you. He's getting paid MILLIONS, MILLIONS of dollars a) to play a game, that b) he doesn't even have to show up in play.

If that is getting screwed, then I really wish someone would screw me.



Wait....that didn't come out right.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its interesting that the Toronto Raptors fans didn't feel the same way about Jalen on the way out.


Look, Jalen is a nice guy. I like him off the court and he says all the right things. But in the locker room, and on the court, he was VERY SIMILAR to TT. Whiny, complaining, no defense playing, no giving efort in practice..........he was just not good for the environment we were trying to create here in chicago. I have no idea what kind of environment they strive for in Toronto, nor do I care. All I know is that we have a better record over the time span that we've been without him than we had with him.....and oddly enough...the same thing is likely to happen in Toronto.

For us here in chicago in our particular situation, he was indeed a cancer. Its called different strokes....


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

This is all more reasons why I can't be a Bulls fan. The Bulls do so many shiesty things. They are far and away the coldest most cutthroat team in the NBA. And it still doesn't show up in the win-loss column. They are just *******s to be *******s.

What's odd is Tim Thomas is a player the Bulls wanted to pay a max contract to before. I bet he's glad he didn't sign that contract in Chicago. One year of this is bad enough.

And I'm definitely not a Tim Thomas fan. But he can play in this league. His only issue is that he is overpaid.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> WTF is wrong with you. He's getting paid MILLIONS, MILLIONS of dollars a) to play a game, that b) he doesn't even have to show up in play.


Actually he is being paid MILLIONS MILLIONS of dollars NOT to play a game that he has dedicated his life to. How would you like to be paid not to do something you clearly like to do and that has been a part of your life for as long as you can remember?

It's not like he doesn't want to play. He's trying to get on with the Nets and Spurs. He's just waiting for the Bulls to cut him loose so he can continue his career. Is that so much to ask? He's not like a Ron Artest. He hasn't done anything crazy and violent and detrimental to any team he has been on. His contract is grossly overpayment for what he does. But he deserves more time in this league than Stephen Graham. If Graham can get a ten day from the Bulls why can't Thomas get a ten minute? Just because he makes the max, he can't go out there and produce? He can play in this league in his sleep. And it's a complete farce what the Bulls are doing to him.

The Bulls are arguably the worst organization in the NBA in terms of how they deal with players. They are completely unproffessional.

I wouldn't be shocked if they make sure and buy Thomas out, after the deadline for him to be able to join a team for the playoffs. Not like they haven't pulled that trick before.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

1. My two cents into the general Paxson feeling around here: he's going to make that huge trade, I think, that will net us the big-time player we want. I think that desperately looking to take a risk by consolidating several of our assets into a very decentish player sounds a LOT like the Jalen Rose trade. Ron Artest, Brad Miller... goodbye. 30 wins: hello. Terrible backsliding after that: hello. Can you blame the guy for being insecure to pull the trigger to get sort-of decent guys with assets that have not YET matured in trade value yet?

Everything I've written above (other than the Jalen Rose bit) has been more or less directly articulated by Paxson in his last Score interview.

2. They KNOW that they have to make a move. Again, that's totally evident in Paxson's attitude on the Score interview (which is markedly different from his tone earlier in the season... if you haven't heard it, I suggest you listen to it, you might be surprised by what you hear). He doesn't think we can win short-term OR long-term with the guys we have right now. He's not thinking we're going to grow a star from within our roster. But he's also understands that what he's been stocking up for the last three years is very valuable and that a critical time is now coming that can either end up in a step towards rings, a step towards mediocrity, or a completely downward spiral.

The way I look at it, we either showcase Ben Gordon and Hinrich and Duhon AND improve the talents that eventually stay on our roster in the long-term, or we showcase Tim Thomas for the only reason of trading him while neglecting the other players those minutes could be going to. Which will give us a bigger return in the end, really?

That's why I'm HAPPY with us not starting Tim Thomas. He hurts the overall investment value of the basket of assets we are growing on this team. There's no mistake that he'd give us some added value in terms of our win-loss record for 2005-2006. But all at the opportunity cost of growing our OWN young players and adding the negative impact of forcing Pax's hand in a trade (which has always been bad news, for one reason or another... see Crawford deal, Curry deal, etc.).


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I respectfully disagree Showtyme, just my hunch.

Here is my simple reason. 

Pax hasnt taken one single chance since he has been GM of the Bulls. Not even one thing that could be considered a gamble outside of Curry. Lets see, 

Traded Away Rose for AD. In AD, he knew what he was getting. Sure the stats dont look good but AD was steady, whereas Rose might have been more for Rose.

Hired Scott Skiles. This might have been his biggest gamble. Skiles didnt recieve one coaching interview since he quit on the Suns but Pax called him regardless and handed him the job without talking to anyone else. But again, Skiles filled Paxs MO

The Crawford situation. Jamal forced this situation by getting the money he did from the Knicks. I think Pax could have asked for more personally but there was little he could do. 

The Curry situation was one brought on by himself. Heck, Playboy this month even bashes the Bulls handling of this (Sometimes I actually read it for the articles!). It was a gamble by Pax but I am not sure it was a preconceived gamble. He forced himself into a situation that he didnt want to admit he was wrong in. 

The drafting of Hinrich. Kirk, even after Jason Williams went down, was probably not the pick of need, but was the most for sure thing on the board at the time. 4 year college player. Good NCAA tournament. I dont think anyone could call it an interesting pick or even a reach. 

The drafting of Gordon and Deng, again, the obvious picks at those spots. In the case of Gordon, still not sure he filled the need the Bulls needed, especially with Jamal going into FA.

His second round picks. He hasnt even gambled there taking college players like Ausin, Duhon and Smith. Good place to take a Euro or a HS kid to develop but even there he isnt taking a chance.

Nocioni. He was considered the most ready NBA player in Europe, who was already a man (23 I believe). The only gamble here was whether Pax was wasting his time pursuing a guy who couldnt get signed due to contract obligations to Tau by a half dozen other NBA teams. But Pax got him. 

Chandler signing. After the year Chandler had, this wasnt a big deal. If he didnt give him Dalembeurt money he was risking losing him the following year for nothing. 

So there is his list of moves so far. Nothing really interesting outside of Curry. And that was an unnessary situation brought on by a line in the sand stance taken before Curry could finish his tests. No real big deals here and not a hint of creativity. So for Pax to do something really big would be a total change of character for him. One I dont think he is capable of, considering his stance on issues (he certainly rules by an iron fist every bit as much as Krause did, but comes across kinder as he is willing to talk to the press, which Krause wouldnt do). Would Pax deal Kirk? Thats the litmus test for Pax. He and Skiles pumped this kid up so much that I wonder if they really had, to borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert, the balls to do it. Does anyone think they have the balls? I really wonder. I dont. Hopefully I am wrong about their ability to make a big deal. But any big deal might include Mr Hinrich and I just dont think they could do it. Just my opinion.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> I respectfully disagree Showtyme, just my hunch.
> 
> Here is my simple reason.
> 
> ...


All good and accurate points. I think Hinrich IS now tradeable; I haven't heard the Kirk lovefest since last season and MUCH can change in a season, indeed.

Maybe it's all talk, and I agree that Pax might be caught looking overly cautiously, but with our history of being OVERLY risky (trading for Chandler was a huge risk that I think most would say hasn't really evened out for us; trading for Rose was a huge risk where we definitely lost out on talent and now have only Tim Thomas to show for it; signing Eddie Robinson after only ONE good season in Charlotte was a pretty risky thing to do also), I think the backlash is understandable and perhaps wise. He's built up a portfolio of safe, improving young players that are in the Artest-Miller-Brand category of young Bulls types and not so much in the Crawford-Curry types.

There's no right way to cut this. Being overly cautious might mean missing out on a great deal. But being overly aggressive when you have a losing franchise puts yourself in a pressure situation where you don't have much leverage. Skiles said in his interview that often times, teams that have a good season and then come back and have a tough one look like prey before other GM's in the league. Teams start looking at the struggling teams as just fodder to strip of talent for some middling guy.

I'm just feeling much more secure with Skiles and Pax now that I've heard from both their lips that the team is looking to make the deal that might make us better, not a guy that will just give us a boost and then flare out, but a consistent and reliable go-to guy. 

And actually (this is just MY hunch, now), I think a trade IS brewing. What they've been representing to the media is that they've been ACTIVE but cautious. I think earlier in the season the line was really less active, more about "the flexibility of the 2006 cap space and the picks". Now, we're hearing much more along the lines of "if there's a move out there that can make us better, John will pull the trigger". I don't know if it's just a philosophical change, or just the fact that earlier in the season, they wanted to test our guys and see if they really could step up to the challenge of winning while severely undersized, and build the concept that even WITHOUT a star, we're a pretty solid team that can win games.

Whether or not a trade is going to get executed is subject to debate, but I have a strong feeling that there's several ideas out there and that Pax has made his own desires known. Just on some wild guesses, I think guys like Ray Allen, Josh Howard, Jason Richardson, and Pau Gasol are the medium to high jib guys that he'd be interested in sending our young talents and picks for.


----------

