# Daily Herald : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

YEP, he's being traded...taken from our OWN papers



> Before Griffin’s signing becomes official, the Bulls will send shooting guard J.R. Smith to Denver for two future second-round draft picks and the nonguaranteed contract of point guard Howard Eisley, who will then be released.





> One potential delay is waiting for physicals to be completed in the trade with New Orleans. The Bulls acquired Smith from the Hornets, along with power forward P.J. Brown, in exchange for Tyson Chandler. They can’t unload Smith until that deal becomes official.


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Gordon / Sefolosha / Griffin
F Deng / Nocioni / Khyrapa
F Brown / Thomas / Sweetney / Allen
C Wallace

Can't say I'm thrilled about the trade, hopefully something else follow's but more than likely they'll probably play Allen, Brown & Sweetney at the back-up center minutes. Roster still feels un-even. But we still have options :

Scott Pollard
Tony Battie [expiring]
Kelvin Cato
Dale Davis [expiring]
Chris Mihm [expiring]
Melvin Ely [expiring]
Dan Gadzuric
Marc Jackson [expiring]
Vitaly Potapenko [expiring]
Jeff Foster
Brian Skinner
Jake Tsakalidis
Jake Voskuhl
Loren Woods
Lorenzen Wright


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

Do we realy need the money that bad? 

JR is a nice player to have for a year or 2 and see if hes got any skills in him.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



thebizkit69u said:


> Do we realy need the money that bad?
> 
> JR is a nice player to have for a year or 2 and see if hes got any skills in him.


Well, he's definintely got skills but being that Hinrich, Gordon & now Sefolosha are all developing guards, maybe they feel like that's enough youth in the backcourt. It makes sense. We still could of gotten something better but oh well.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



thebizkit69u said:


> Do we realy need the money that bad?
> 
> JR is a nice player to have for a year or 2 and see if hes got any skills in him.


One bad apple sours.......

If his work ethic doesn't match the others on the team, it's not going to be tolerated.

I'm only talking about work ethic here, I've never read anything from a reliable source that said he has character issues, his work ethic has been question though.

Denver should be good for him


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

I wish he could have gotten a chance. I know this is a cap room move, but JR is an exciting player. I would have liked to see if Skiles could change him.... guess not.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

But isnt the job of a coach is to also develop young players? 
And make them better pros? 

Tyrus Thomas may have a good work ethetic but he also comes into the league with some questionable attitute problems.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

Khyrapa
Hinrich
Sefolosha
Gordon
Deng
Nocioni
Duhon
Thomas
Sweetney

We do have a very young team, so it's understandable why Pax did it.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



thebizkit69u said:


> But isnt the job of a coach is to also develop young players?
> And make them better pros?
> 
> Tyrus Thomas may have a good work ethetic but he also comes into the league with some questionable attitute problems.


I doubt Skiles is here to develop anyone. Thomas is Paxson's guy, so yeah, he's gonna have to deal with that but Skiles said he wasn't here for development when Curry & Chandler were here.


----------



## J-City (Feb 20, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

:hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl: :hurl:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE UNGUARANTEED CONTRACT.

It's about the picks. 

If Paxson flat out didn't want to spend any money, he wouldn't have acquired JR. The Chandler trade worked without him.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



The ROY said:


> I doubt Skiles is here to develop anyone. Thomas is Paxson's guy, so yeah, he's gonna have to deal with that but Skiles said he wasn't here for development when Curry & Chandler were here.


But isnt that the job of a coach, to not only have a winning team but also develop any talent that the team might have? 

I mean so what is Skiles not going to develop Thomas, just because Skiles is not the type of coach who develops players?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

This is just a sickening off season. One ridiculous trade after another.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

hmm interesting.

I still think Allen and Sweetney might be available to teams and Duhon for the right one. Everyone else is safe.

God help us to think if JR does come out to be a good player that many of us feel he has the potential to do so, Carmello and JR tandem thats a bit scarey.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

Terrible.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

...and once again the realities of cap management is lost on this board.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



Greg Ostertag! said:


> ...and once again the realities of cap management is lost on this board.


Yeah, Pax has to clear cap space so he can sign Gooden & Wilcox!

:laugh:


----------



## all_aus (Aug 28, 2005)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*

im would of liked to keep jr, but i guess if you are behind kirk, ben and thabo, he aint gona get many minutes.

the 2 2nd rounder could be of some value down the line though.

all i can say is what is gonna happen next????????

duhon, sweetney, allen, krappa are the only unsafe ones now... maybe one of deng noc if the deals right


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



The ROY said:


> Can't say I'm thrilled about the trade, hopefully something else follow's but more than likely they'll probably play Allen, Brown & Sweetney at the back-up center minutes. Roster still feels un-even. But we still have options :
> 
> 
> Dan Gadzuric


I don't think Larry Harris is going to trade Gadzuric - Magloire, yes, but not Gadzuric even though Stotts didn't play him much in the playoffs. 

Can't say I'm upset about the trade. We so didn't need another 20 year old on the team.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



Greg Ostertag! said:


> ...and once again the realities of cap management is lost on this board.


The guy was set to make $1M. You don't have to be a cap guru to realize this wasn't a financial move. Maybe we use that M on a backup center, not sur how much money is left, but for some reason I don't see any other signing outside of summerleague guys.

I was wishywashy on the Tyson trade before and now I'm leaning towards it sucked, we got

2M in cap
2,2rdp's
Brown for a year

Much more flexible I suppose. I definitly am not calling for Pax's head or anything, but it just seems like we could've gotten more. My theory is that JR gave Pax a tight financial leash(eg. Wallace's contract front loaded), and although we could've gotten more for Chandler it was not financially viable. It might not be a bad thing because in the long haul the flexibilty may help more than Tyson, but if JR gets cheap when it comes to resigning our core then we have to impeach him for not being for the people.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



Hustle said:


> The guy was set to make $1M. You don't have to be a cap guru to realize this wasn't a financial move. Maybe we use that M on a backup center, not sur how much money is left, but for some reason I don't see any other signing outside of summerleague guys.
> 
> I was wishywashy on the Tyson trade before and now I'm leaning towards it sucked, we got
> 
> ...


We'd have had to play JR in front of Gordon or Thabo to prove he wasn't what Bryan Scott thought he was - a big pain - to get teams to ante up more. Why would we want to do that? 

And this is a cap space move to sign Griffin - We're waiving Eisley to sign Griffin.

See http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nba/article/0,2777,DRMN_23922_4849650,00.html



> The source said the Bulls then plan to trade Smith to the Nuggets for guard Howard Eisley, who has a nonguaranteed contract, and two future second-round picks. The Bulls, who need to clear salary cap room to sign free-agent forward Adrian Griffin, then would waive Eisley.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



narek said:


> We'd have had to play JR in front of Gordon or Thabo to prove he wasn't what Bryan Scott thought he was - a big pain - to get teams to ante up more. Why would we want to do that?
> 
> And this is a cap space move to sign Griffin - We're waiving Eisley to sign Griffin.
> 
> See http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nba/article/0,2777,DRMN_23922_4849650,00.html


i ACTUALLY thought JR's value would go up if he simply didn't get cut because of the Bulls rep as hard workers and considering there are such good players ahead of him. Any way you slice it we could've gotten more talent for Tyson.

2rdp's and Grif are only good for depth which we have plenty of already(and will for a while). Brown is one and done, and will be lucky if the youngs Bulls team even carries enough ice for his knees.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Must admit, not too thrilled with this one. I did hold hope Smith was worth a gamble and may amount to something. We have no room for second rounds picks, which are useless, and if cap space is freed up to sign Griffin I think it is a waste. At least Smith could have amounted to something. Griffin will get absolutely no burn, and will be paid to act like Jack Haley on the sidelines. We picked up Griffin a few years ago as a throw in, and at the time it was thought he would retire with his brittle knee. He did contribute some, but 2 years later will end up cheerleading. Would of rather picked up a big body, where there is some chance of contribution.

If you want to acquire more leaders who will help the youngsters, hire Livingston as an Assistant coach or someone comparable. Griffin has no place to play unless we get hit by injuries. And three years? Man, you didn't want to give him a contract last year with a thinner roster. Now we are deep and you are giving him 3 years? Must have only a year guaranteed. 

Give you an F on this one Pax. I held hope for Smith still developing, now the Chandler trade was for two old fogies and 2 second rounders. Just made the whole thing a complete salary dump. I still give you an A for the offseason, but this one reeks.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

That trade really, really sucked. You're not telling me Pax couldnt have bundled Smith with other pieces for something useful. 2 2nd rounders are not useful, you can pick them up on Draft night no problem..
And saying it clears up cap for the future (due to brown etc) is pointless as well - Ben Wallace is declining, if you acquire a 32 year old player you make sure you can win NOW, not in 3 years time when he'll be a 2nd string, 20 minute a night typa guy.

Guess this means no Gooden either - what else is there left to send to the Cavs? Duhon n Sweets..

Oh, and the Bulls still need to sign a pg (unless Duhon isn't being moved, as Sefolosha can fill in time there, as can Ben)


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Just a reminder - 

New Orleans spent all last season trying to deal JR Smith.

The best offer they got was Brent Barry.

His value has not gone up in the interim period.

And I'd rather have Eisley and two seconds than Brent Barry.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Sham said:


> Just a reminder -
> 
> New Orleans spent all last season trying to deal JR Smith.
> 
> ...


Well, we're not going to have Eisley either, since it was reported we will get him and immediately release him.

Hopefully, there will be at least one more move to fill out the roster.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Indeed. Instead of Eisley, we'll use the opened-up money on Adrian Griffin.

Griffin and two seconds for JR Smith.

I'm on board.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Sham said:


> Indeed. Instead of Eisley, we'll use the opened-up money on Adrian Griffin.
> 
> Griffin and two seconds for JR Smith.
> 
> I'm on board.


Bingo! I'm not understanding all the moaning and complaining over JR freakin Smith. He has almost zero trade value, he would have been, at best, the fifth guard in the rotation behind Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon and Sefolosha. He would have barely ever seen the floor and folks what to complain about dealing him for Howard freakin Eisley? (Notice the "freakin" between both players names. That means they're both not very good.) 

It seems pretty evident that Pax wanted Griffin back and he could have just cut JR Smith to do it but instead he at least got a couple of second-rounders.

In the grand scheme of things; this was a drop of water in the ocean. It's such a minor move that it will barely effect anything on this team this comming year.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Bingo! I'm not understanding all the moaning and complaining over JR freakin Smith. He has almost zero trade value, he would have been, at best, the fifth guard in the rotation behind Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon and Sefolosha. He would have barely ever seen the floor and folks what to complain about dealing him for Howard freakin Eisley? (Notice the "freakin" between both players names. That means they're both not very good.)
> 
> It seems pretty evident that Pax wanted Griffin back and he could have just cut JR Smith to do it but instead he at least got a couple of second-rounders.
> 
> In the grand scheme of things; this was a drop of water in the ocean. It's such a minor move that it will barely effect anything on this team this comming year.


I agree it was a minor move, and hardly something to get worked up over. Still, couldn't we have gotten a bigger body who may give us a few minutes? Agreed Smith had little value, but for a short period was at least worth a look if all you were giving him up for was a guy who has no knees left and does nothing but sit and collect a paycheck. There was at least a small chance Smith could have developed into something more than a cheerleader. Griffin has zero chance to give us much of anything.

I could see this move if you were certain you had a championship team and Griffin was a guy who if people broke down could step in and give some minutes without hurting you. But this roster is thin on big guys, and we are not in my opinion a championship team. We still need some difference makers, and if you can keep a spot on your 15 man roster for someone who has a chance to develop into something more than a human victory cigar over a broken down cheerleader I say you do it. If Smith doesn't work, we surely must be able to get this type of value in a trade later. Or release the guy, cause with Griffin and second round picks you are getting nothing anyway.

Not a big deal, but I still give Pax an F on this one. A for the offseason though.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

What a huge mistake.

a YOUNG 6'"6 athletic guard who can shoot for an aging guard who will provide some veteran leadership


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If this move suprised you at all, you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

We're essentially throwing away JR for two 2nd rounders and capspace for ADRIAN GRIFFIN. Can I purchase cyanide pills over the internet?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Bottom line is..

We aren't rebuilding anymore. .Too much youth isn't a GOOD thing for us right now. I definintely would have rather traded for a big but obviously these trades are supposed to me mean more to the team (and their needs) as opposed to what WE want.

Sefolosha/Hinrich/Gordon/Duhon leave no minutes for Smith. I'm sure when Paxson picks up a big, we'll forget all about the Smith debacle.

You guys are funny though. At first it was, "nooo, he's a headcase, don't bring him here". Now it's "but he had talent, we should of kept for atleast a few months"

BLAHHHH! make up your minds


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Another genius move by Pax. Pure genius. Genius. Pure. Pax.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I agree it was a minor move, and hardly something to get worked up over. Still, couldn't we have gotten a bigger body who may give us a few minutes? A*greed Smith had little value, but for a short period* was at least worth a look if all you were giving him up for was a guy who has no knees left and does nothing but sit and collect a paycheck. There was at least a small chance Smith could have developed into something more than a cheerleader. Griffin has zero chance to give us much of anything.
> 
> * I could see this move if you were certain you had a championship team and Griffin was a guy who if people broke down could step in and give some minutes without hurting you. But this roster is thin on big guys, and we are not in my opinion a championship team.* We still need some difference makers, and if you can keep a spot on your 15 man roster for someone who has a chance to develop into something more than a human victory cigar over a broken down cheerleader I say you do it. If Smith doesn't work, we surely must be able to get this type of value in a trade later. Or release the guy, cause with Griffin and second round picks you are getting nothing anyway.
> 
> Not a big deal, but I still give Pax an F on this one. A for the offseason though.


Agree with the bolded part, but I disagree with most of the rest.

Like I said, I'm not going to complain about getting Adrian Griffin. What happens on the court in games is only a fraction of what goes on. All the other time a team is together- practice, travel, meetings, etc, we don't see, but it's important too. And I think he'll be very good in those aspects. That's why I wanted him last year.

* But signing Griffin when you've already added PJ seems a bit redundant. I wonder if we're just making up not doing it last year, when he would have been more useful.

* Not giving a good look at JR Smith, when it seems inevitable that a trade is down the line, also seems rather odd. I understand the Bulls are deep at the position, but everyone and their mother knows a trade is coming at some point. And while I don't know that it'll be with us, I don't have much doubt that JR Smith will have an ok career.

* But above all, I'd really liked to have gone into the season with a more capable, younger big guy.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

For me I think I have reached the point where I have total trust in Paxson. This guy really knows what he's doing, unlike most of the GM's out there or the wanna-be GM's  I was a little worried that he would keep Smith. But Paxson did the right thing and moved him. 

Grade for the offseason: A


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

The ROY said:


> You guys are funny though. At first it was, "nooo, he's a headcase, don't bring him here". Now it's "but he had talent, we should of kept for atleast a few months"
> 
> BLAHHHH! make up your minds


I wanted to trade for him ever since I heard that NOK was shopping him last year. I was so excited when the Bulls finally got him, and now we're throwing him away for a mediocre role player. JR addressed a need for this team, which getting to the rim. Not a single player, possibly outside of Tyrus Thomas, can attack the rim for their life. JR settles for the 3, but then again, so do Gordon, Hinrich, Duhon, and Noc. If Smith can hit at a decent %, whats the harm? He's also still learning the game. JR would be a project, but he could still see minutes behind BG at the 2 spot. Say what you want, but Kirk has no business playing the 2, and neither does Sefolosha. JR is a perfect for the Bulls backcourt.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

It's sad if we need to depend on Adrian Griffin with the team we put together. Although, he is nice insurance incase a SG/SF gets hurt. I have to assume the 3 year contract has team options for the 2nd and 3rd year. Otherwise it be a boneheaded move if his contract was anything more than the Vets min.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Trib Report 





> Adrian Griffin is on his way back to the Bulls with a three-year contract.
> 
> To make room for Griffin, J.R. Smith must go.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Apparently we underestimate what having veterans can do for a team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sham said:


> Apparently we underestimate what having veterans can do for a team.


Sometimes... and sometimes we overestimate what they can do. Having Scottie Pippen, Corie Blount, and Kendall Gill wasn't all that much of a help a couple years back.

Simply turning the end of your bench into an old-folks home isn't going to help if 
1) They can't play
2) The rest of your roster is poorly constructed and/or not very good.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Do you think either of those points applies to this team? Becuase I really, really don't.


----------



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

I still can't figure out how Paxson couldn't Zeke to take JR for our 1st round pick next season in addition to their pick. :biggrin: 

JR Smith appears to be the polar opposite of what Paxson wants in a player. Paxson's love of the jib weights over all other factors. You must play the right way and you must work, anything else is unexceptable. You can be the world's greatest athlete but if you don't work you aren't needed.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I think with Griffin, Allen, & Brown we have the right type of vet role-players. They all play hard, all have very good defense & they've all been through the nba life for a long time. Even guys like Sweetney benefit from having these vets when they're wondering why their minutes have been cut and things like that. Those vets sit on the side, explain what they did/didn't do and obviously you'll take the advice given from someone who's already been there.

I think it's important. These vets still play hard and contribute on the floor also.

I still believe between now and the deadline, some sort of move will be made (besides this).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Sham said:


> Indeed. Instead of Eisley, we'll use the opened-up money on Adrian Griffin.
> 
> Griffin and two seconds for JR Smith.
> 
> I'm on board.


Thats how I look at it too now that the Griffin signing was reported. 

I wasn't terribly happy about this deal when it was rumored last week in a vaccuum. I.e., it looked like an isolated move. The only reason for it I could think of was that Eisely made more money and, therefore, had a more valuable expiring contract. But when it was reported here that his deal wasn't guaranteed, the move confused me. I'd have rather keep Smith to see what he could do in camp, or trade him for a big. 

But now that it appears the deal is necessary to facilitate the Griffin signing, which I understand and support, I don't have a problem with it. 

I don't like it, I don't dislike it. It doesn't really mean a whole lot to me one way or the other. I liked what Griffin did for us and for Dallas. So thats a plus. But less of a plus than some good size would have provided (assuming there was such a player to be had).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

As a rule, "internet message board fan" loves players from high school, especially ones who have participated in dunk contests. "That guys' super talented!," no matter how ineffective or disruptive that player is playing real, organized NBA basketball.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Sham said:


> Do you think either of those points applies to this team? Becuase I really, really don't.


I don't either. 

But if he's referring to circumstances of a different team, with a roster that is poorly constructed and isn't good, and vets that can't play, then I totally agree with him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Yeah I am sure some young player like Smith who hasn't made an NBA name for himself would have really been a disruption playing with men who HAVE made names for themselves. Smith had about as much influence on this team as a water cooler, probably less. It was a bad trade, getting a young talented player like Smith was the only thing that made the Chandler trade remotely palatable and now we ship him off for a couple of second rounders. Oh well.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

Cant say I'm thrilled w/ the trade.


I was hoping the Bulls would try and package Smith w/ some other players and maybe land a back up Center of sorts thats over 6'11 that could provide some decent Minutes.



If that wasnt possible I wanted them to keep him and at least give him a half of season try out. I know he was a Pain in the A$$ last year in N.O. but the kid has talent and I think it was worth a shot to see what he has.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah I am sure some young player like Smith who hasn't made an NBA name for himself would have really been a disruption playing with men who HAVE made names for themselves. Smith had about as much influence on this team as a water cooler, probably less. It was a bad trade, getting a young talented player like Smith was the only thing that made the Chandler trade remotely palatable and now we ship him off for a couple of second rounders. Oh well.


So we've shipped Chandler for

P.J. Brown
Adrian Griffin
Two future 2nd Rounders

SMH


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> What a huge mistake.
> 
> a YOUNG 6'"6 athletic guard who can shoot for an aging guard who will provide some veteran leadership


I understand where you are coming from. But this type of characterization of Griffin is a bit unfair. 

He started 45 games for Dallas last year - the Western Conference Champs - and played 24 minutes a game. He provides a little bit more than veteran leadership. He can actually contribute. 

And, for what its worth, I think veteran leadership is important and is being unfairly undervalued here. Watching last season, it was obvious we needed more of a veteran presence and that there was something lacking with the absence of Griffin and AD.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

No, I don't think they apply, I was just pointing out I don't agree with the blanket "we underestimated the importance of vets" perspective. 

We underestimated the importance of vets last year. Oddly, I think that leads to us overestimating their importance this year. I think our kids, to a large extent, were forced to become vets on their own last year, and thus we don't need vets quite as much, now that we're getting a boatload of them.

But still, I think it's good on the whole.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this team is "poorly constructed", but it is a concern. We'll be good no matter what, but I think we'd be significantly better, and significantly sturdier, with one more quality big guy who can soak up 20 minutes a game. We're a 37 year old set of PJs away from being back in basically the same position we were last year as far as frontcourt depth.

The glass half full view of that is that yeah, we still made the playoffs. The glass half empty view is that we'd seem to have a lot sturdier team if we could pick up one seven footer who I wouldn't cringe to see coming into the game.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



The ROY said:


> G Hinrich / Duhon
> G Gordon / Sefolosha / Griffin
> F Deng / Nocioni / Khyrapa
> F Brown / Thomas / Sweetney / Allen
> ...


I thought I remembered reading something saying Battie was to be re-signed.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't either.
> 
> But if he's referring to circumstances of a different team, with a roster that is poorly constructed and isn't good, and vets that can't play, then I totally agree with him.



Who cares about other teams :banana: 





> We underestimated the importance of vets last year. Oddly, I think that leads to us overestimating their importance this year.


Quite possibly. Quite possibly.

Then again, it's not like we've brought in crap ones to prove a point. Ben Wallace is a star, PJ Brown has a long an dproven good track record, Griffin's solid...and that's kinda it. 

I think in the 47 win season, they struck the perfect balance. Last year, they didn't (not that if we had Griffin over Basden it would have chnaged much dramatically, but it would have helped). This year, it looks to me as though they've got it right again, at least on paper.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



Rhyder said:


> I thought I remembered reading something saying Battie was to be re-signed.



He already has. He signed a 4 year extension during the regular season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



thebizkit69u said:


> Do we realy need the money that bad?
> 
> JR is a nice player to have for a year or 2 and see if hes got any skills in him.


The Bulls have a lot of players with skills and don't want to get any younger.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Must admit, not too thrilled with this one. I did hold hope Smith was worth a gamble and may amount to something.



We've been bad so long that many still have "potential-mania".


----------



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

Anyone else find it humorous that JR keeps getting moved from tough coach to tougher coach? 
Scott>Skiles>Karl is some progression. 

This trade constitutes a complete do over on giving Tyson his big deal. I think the fact that Tyson didn't show up for half the season last year disappointed alot of fans as well as management. 

In next year's draft there are a number of big men available and now Pax has a number of cards to play in aquiring the Bulls next big. If by chance the Knicks pick isn't a lottery pick, Pax could package it w/ a 2nd to move up to get the next 4 to play next to Wallace. Tyson isn't going to be too hard to replace, Tyrus might be the player to make us forget Tyson before the season is out. 

The Bulls could get through this season w/ a weak 3rd string center. Luke or Drago can at the very least give the Bulls 6 fouls.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

L.O.B said:


> The Bulls could get through this season w/ a weak 3rd string center. Luke or Drago can at the very least give the Bulls 6 fouls.


I didn't even know Drago was a center. How tall is he?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

GB said:


> We've been bad so long that many still have "potential-mania".


This wouldn't be a bad time to gamble on potential. We would not need JR to give us many minutes. He could take the minutes Pike and Pargo had. We just needed the opportunity to try to develop in him practice and see what he can do. If he didn't fit in our scheme, we could have shipped him out by Feb.


----------



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

MikeDC said:


> The glass half full view of that is that yeah, we still made the playoffs. The glass half empty view is that we'd seem to have a lot sturdier team if we could pick up one seven footer who I wouldn't cringe to see coming into the game.


Yeah. 

Wow.

Is this the consolidation trade that we were all waiting for ?

One. Two. Many Moves.

Were still good, but not too much better. At least, barring injuries, we'll obviously make the playoffs.

Past the hubdubbery of "yeah, we saved some money" and "obviously, some people don't know a thing about fiscal/cap management", we still have the same needs in the frontcourt, you know, if we actually want to field a championship team when we actually play the game of basketball.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I don't hate trading J.R. I would prefer that he was traded in a consolidation package for a big man who could contribute this season. I guess those second round picks could also add value to a trade package.

p.s. Anyone know how much a players vertical leap is increased by playing in Denver? I know baseballs travel about 10% further.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> This wouldn't be a bad time to gamble on potential.



Yes it would. You develop players for the future

A. When you're rebuilding.

or

B. When you're a perennial contender and your stars are aging.


We're not either.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> A
> The Bulls could get through this season w/ a weak 3rd string center. Luke or Drago can at the very least give the Bulls 6 fouls.


Man, I was expecting a lot more than "getting through" this season.

I was hoping to actually contend.

Ben Wallace will be, what, 33 next season?

Its inexcusable, IMO, for us to be fielding an incomplete team given the resources at Paxson's / Uncle Jerry's disposal.



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

Tyson Chandler, Nocioni/Deng, a draft pick.

That can get you a difference making 4. 

Fine, we salary dump Chandler for a vet and another young player w/ upside. Now we dump that asset for nothing of real value.

We still need to make a consolidation trade… but its going to be harder and harder if we keep giving away assets for aging players. 

But, the player we would be trading for in such a deal would likely have a long-term, big $$$ deal in place…. So perhaps that plays into all these moves.

BEN WALLACE!!!! BEN WALLACE!!!! WE SIGNED BEN WALLACE!!!!!!!


----------



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

The ROY said:


> I didn't even know Drago was a center. How tall is he?


6'11" listed at 236 but he looked bigger. He lumbers and looks pretty damn stiff but he can shoot.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

GB said:


> Yes it would. You develop players for the future
> 
> A. When you're rebuilding.
> 
> ...


I don't see it being a bad time. We are not asking him to give us significant PT. We can develop him in practice. Just have him play. We know he can play. Its a matter of attitude/work ethic. If he shows that he can live up to it in practice, then he can earn a some PT. I'm not asking him to get Eddy Curry or Tyson Chandler minutes. Just to develop him a little in practice. Teach him how to play D. Our team is at the point where they can lead by example. If he chooses to follow, great. If not, we got time to ship him out. At worse, you waive him. Lose 2 mil of salary cap space for a year.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> We can develop him in practice.



This is your brain on "Potential-mania".


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

We're still developing Ben, Kirk, Tyrus & Luol. Smith may be very good one day but we already have talent to develop. Adding another kid wouldn't be fair to our new rooks or to SMith.


----------



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

kukoc4ever said:


> Man, I was expecting a lot more than "getting through" this season.
> 
> I was hoping to actually contend.
> 
> ...


We are going to do far better than get through. Wallace and Brown @ 1, 2 on the depth chart, might be the best depth the Bulls have ever had at center. How much is this 3rd center going to play? Would a player like AD coming back suit the role of 3rd center of the bench? 

The Bulls have scarey depth as it is

Wallace, Brown...Luke/ Drago/AD
Nocioni, Tyrus, Sweets, Viktor
Deng, Tyrus, Nocioni, Viktor, Griffin
Gordon, Thabo, Griffin
Kirk, Duh and Thabo


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> We are going to do far better than get through. Wallace and Brown @ 1, 2 on the depth chart, might be the best depth the Bulls have ever had at center. How much is this 3rd center going to play? Would a player like AD coming back suit the role of 3rd center of the bench?
> 
> The Bulls have scarey depth as it is
> 
> ...


Depth does not win in the playoffs, IMO. The better players dominate the minutes. 8 core guys. Usually a couple stars.

This PJ/Sweets/Allen hodge-podge needs to be resolved.

We will be a better team than the .500 bunch from last year. With 16+ mil in Cap Space and the #2 pick in the draft it would be hard not to be better.

Its going to be a fun year. Ben Wallace. Tyrus Thomas. Thabo. The rest of the gang. Good team.

I don't see any reason though to be dumping players, or not going after players like Gooden who are available and could shore up the holes and really make us a contender. If Tyrus continues his explosive growth perhaps.....


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I love how right after the Tyson trade was announced, I immediately (along with a some others in the minority) stated that there's no way JR Smith plays a minute with us and almost everyone said things like "No way! He wasn't just filler. Pax got a steal!" Right.

So, we ended up with:

Tyson for PJ Brown
23 year old with "value around the league" for 36 year old who's most commonly stated strength is being a "tough, good locker room guy"

Frankly, anyone who sees that as a good trade, regardless of Tyson's glaring deficiencies (and there were many) is simply incapable of a) being unbiased when it comes to moves Pax makes and/or b) being logical.

I didn't mind trading Tyson if we could get back good value for him. That didn't happen.

Furthermore, I'd like to see Pax make a trade at some point where we can actually say he got even equal talent back and not just contracts that are good for the salary cap. So far, it's never been close.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> I'd like to see Pax make a trade at some point where we can actually say he got even equal talent back. So far, it's never been close.


I agree.

The only one that has a shot he's already chalked up to "found money."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

In the grand scheme of things, having JR Smith on the roster or not is a tiny little pimple on Benny the Bull's butt.

(A song about the pimple on Benny the Bull's butt appears on the soon to drop "Benny the Bull: Live from Cook County Jail" soundtrack).


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I still like the direction the team is going overall, but man, the stuff thats been done since the high of the draft and the Wallace signing has been really underwhelming.

Tyson Chandler for a 37 year old,Griffin, and 2 2nd rounders. Eww. I'd have much preferred keeping Chandler and then adding another serviceable big along with Wallace.

I don't like the idea of Brown being so important to the team's chances this year.I don't like the idea of seeing Sweetney out there in important minutes considering how he played from December on. I don't like it with Allen either, considering he pretty much sucks. I don't like Noch as a full time 4. Cetain matchups, ok. But not against all comers.

There's no good reason to not sign a passable backup big man. This seems similar to the last two years, where though there was a clear need for at least one decent big guard, Pax instead chose to proceed without one, resulting in Pike and Pargo being out there way too long, and Kirk expending too much energy defending big two guards.

I guess its Nocioni's turn to get the Kirk treatment. Hopefully, he can do as well against the postup 4's as Kirk did against the big two guards. At least Tyrus is waiting in the wings, and I think he'll be able to step in give some relief as early as late in the season.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> The only one that has a shot he's already chalked up to "found money."



Boy, I wish I was as stupid as Pax. We ended up with this kick-*** team _somehow_.

Positive outcomes of Pax's past trades:

Luol Deng
Ben Wallace
Chris Duhon
Tyrus Thomas
Antonio Davis (for reasons oft stated)

Not to mention the positive team chemistry he has built with the players he has traded for. There's value in that. I don't think we can look at trades in a vacuum, like say, with a fantasy league.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> I love how right after the Tyson trade was announced, I immediately (along with a some others in the minority) stated that there's no way JR Smith plays a minute with us and almost everyone said things like "No way! He wasn't just filler. Pax got a steal!" Right.
> 
> So, we ended up with:
> 
> ...


I'll say this.

I think with a guy like Carlos Boozer, Al Harrington, or even... God help me because I don't like his game or contract at all... Troy Murphy, we'd have a legitimate chance to make the NBA Finals. Perhaps I'm overestimating the rest of the talent on this team, but I think given a solid scoring option up front, we might be the best team in the conference. 

Without that guy, we're obviously a lot better, but I don't think we have the horses, and it's irritating to me that we seemed to be in reach of getting there and have reigned it in. I'm still optimistic about the possibility of getting there in the future, but I think we've missing an opportunity to get there now if we dont' get that guy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

badfish said:


> We ended up with this kick-*** team _somehow_.



The main reasons, IMO, of this team being potentially kick-*** are the Pistons deciding not to pay Ben Wallace 60 mil over 4 years at age 32 and the Knicks being unexpectedly bad last season ("found money").


The environment created here by PaxSkiles may have played a role in Ben coming here, although I've never heard anything concrete about other 60 mil / 4 year or more offers he had on the table.

Its been a nice Houdini act from Paxson, IMO, and one that Bulls fans should benefit from.



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



Listen, I'm totally excited about the upcoming season... can't wait for it to start... its just that I think I share the MikeDC sentiment of feeling we're one move away from winning another championship.... fate has been kind to us and PaxSkiles has changed the culture of the org, no small feat. It worked out fine.

I'd like to see one more move made. What's happening instead are salary dumps.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The main reasons, IMO, of this team being potentially kick-*** are the Pistons deciding not to pay Ben Wallace 60 mil over 4 years at age 32 and the Knicks being unexpectedly bad last season ("found money").
> 
> 
> The environment created here by PaxSkiles may have played a role in Ben coming here, although I've never heard anything concrete about other 60 mil / 4 year or more offers he had on the table.
> ...



"The harder I work, the luckier I get."

Samuel Goldwyn


The quote doesn't exactly fit the Paxson situation, but it is close enough.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> "The harder I work, the luckier I get."
> 
> Samuel Goldwyn


I totally agree that the sound environment PaxSkiles have created here has played a big role in getting this team back to respectability. Now it looks like we'll have the talent as well. Nice combo.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

GB said:


> Yes it would. You develop players for the future
> 
> A. When you're rebuilding.
> 
> ...


Of course, this erroneously assumes that we are going to re-sign the players we have. If Pax doesnt or they balk, we are screwed......and back to square one, after next season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Of course, this erroneously assumes that we are going to re-sign the players we have. * If* Pax doesnt or they balk, we are screwed......and back to square one, after next season.



Well, we'll just have to wait and see if Paxson does continue to act with the best interests of the team in mind...as he always has...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Of course, this erroneously assumes that we are going to re-sign the players we have. If Pax doesnt or they balk, we are screwed......and back to square one, after next season.



as does this quote erroneously assumes that paxson will get a brain tumor and won't figure out how to manage the team's future, the team will mutiny against pax's frugality, go to hell in a handcart and square one will bring the team crashing back to earth in a blaze of FA departures, injuries, egos run amok and scott skiles turning into the coach from hell........

sorry, the sky ain't falling........


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Well, we'll just have to wait and see if Paxson does continue to act with the best interests of the team in mind...as he always has...



And for the record, to this point, over 3 seasons, it has resulted in a below .500 record and 0 playoff series wins.


He still has a lot to prove, IMO. Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas will go a long way in helping.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Listen, I'm totally excited about the upcoming season... can't wait for it to start... its just that I think I share the MikeDC sentiment of feeling we're one move away from winning another championship.... fate has been kind to us and PaxSkiles has changed the culture of the org, no small feat. It worked out fine.
> 
> I'd like to see one more move made. What's happening instead are salary dumps.


I agree that we are one move away. I think Pax probably thinks so as well, which is why I still think he has something up his sleeve. It may not come to fruition this summer though. The trading deadline or at the latest next summer seems quite plausible. If there isn't anybody that is a slam dunk this summer, then I'm ok to be patient for a little while. Our "'Sheed trade" is yet to come.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> as does this quote erroneously assumes that paxson will get a brain tumor and won't figure out how to manage the team's future, the team will mutiny against pax's frugality, go to hell in a handcart and square one will bring the team crashing back to earth in a blaze of FA departures, injuries, egos run amok and scott skiles turning into the coach from hell........
> 
> sorry, the sky ain't falling........


Come on dude, use some logic just this one time and stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't commented on this trade. So this idea that I'm "doggin management" is getting old. I'm just putting the flip side of the argument out there. There are some risks in the moves we've made. I only stated what SHOULD be obvious, but people seem to enjoy ignoring.

Paxson has put us in a position now, where HE pretty much HAS to re-sign the guys he has (Deng, Noce, and Gordon, I'm talking about now). If he doesn't, we will be screwed in the short term, as the replacements that we would look to replace them with, are already signed to extentions or are not being moved.

Its highly unlikely that we'll get anyone of any more value TO US, than those three if we don't re-sign them (unless we suddenly have a change of heart about KG, or KB24 suddenly becomes available), so he HAS to resign his core now. If he doesn't the situation is NOT gonna look pretty. 

That's common sense. This idea that Paxson cannot screw up is really over the top. And this idea that anyone that looks at both sides, is some pax hater or perpetually negative is equally tiresome. If you don't want to debate this like an adult, instead of reverting to hyperbole and insults, simply ignore my post and we'll keep right on moving along.....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Why shouldn't Selafosha have to compete for time? He's not proven a thing on the NBA court, while Smith has.

Chalk this up as yet another trade where we gave up the best player(s) in the deal.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

OK, many thought he would be traded, but traded for so little is what is disappointing.

I agree with Animal.....YOu could've let him develop or burn and it would've cost nothing.

If our young guys can get so distracted by Smith, how good is their ability to not have other distractions hurt them as well. So, I don't buy that excuse.

The problem I have is that you are not likely to have the opportunity to get a guy with his talent (mental midget or not) for the future. You lose nothing by letting him develop or dump him for nothing later.

a 6'6" guy with talent is is no worse than hiring a guy like Livingston to teach and chapparone. That's essentially what Griffin brings. If he's ont he floor, it means Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon and Sefalosha are all in trouble or hurt.....insert Pargo soghting make me reach for sharp things reference. I'd rather have AD back than Griffin. Griffin's a good guy, but why bring him back and for three years (better be 1 with 2 unguaranteed). At some point these "kids" have to stand on their own.

Bottom line, if I had a poll on who would trade Chandler for PJ Brown, Griffin and two 2nd rounders......I don't think even the Chandler bashers (like me) would've supported that trade ....and certainly not enthusiastically.

Am I down on Pax....no. Disappointed that Chandler was worth even less than anyone thought - Yes. 

As for cap BS, I want the best team we can field. Remember the assets argument? Remember the wild stories of CHandler being a center piece in trades for Garnet, et all. Turns out he's worth a Marcus Fizer rookie card, and two future donut buyers and bag carriers.

IT'S OFFICIAL - WE GREATLY OVERVALUE OUR PLAYERS!



To that end I suggest we trade trade Ben Gordon to NY for a 1987 Camarro IROC Z (with fresh paint job), a Mullet, and a set of fake gold chains from Mr. T.

I'm looking forward to the Kirk Hinrich for a Corm Field and scarecrow trade.

The Loul Deng for a lifetime membership into an triboe of Paxson's choice.

I jest.........In Pax I still trust.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Chalk this up as yet another trade where we gave up the best player(s) in the deal.


We've yet to have a worse record post-trade than the team we traded with. I don't see that changing next season either.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sham said:


> We've yet to have a worse record post-trade than the team we traded with. I don't see that changing next season either.


Yet we've seen our record go from 30 wins to 23 one season and 47 to 41 another. OUR RECORD declines because of these deals.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> Bottom line, if I had a poll on who would trade Chandler for PJ Brown, Griffin and two 2nd rounders......I don't think even the Chandler bashers (like me) would've supported that trade ....and certainly not enthusiastically.


We got raped. Paxson should have held out for PJ, Griff, 2 second rounders, a bus pass and a cheese sammich.

Other than that. I'm fine with what we got and sincerely doubt we could have done much better.


If the Hornets turn around and trade Chandler some day for a player of some impact and significance, I'll gladly eat crow.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> Am I down on Pax....no. Disappointed that Chandler was worth even less than anyone thought - Yes.


According to McGraw, there was strong demand for Chandler.

Looks like goal #1 was to get the contract off the books though, not to improve the team.

Chander + Noc/Deng + draft pick gets you something really good.

If it doesn't, there is no harm keeping him on the team this season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Yet we've seen our record go from 30 wins to 23 one season and 47 to 41 another. OUR RECORD declines because of these deals.



47 to 41 has as much or more to do with Chandler's half season vacation from mattering as it does with any trades.

Do you not think that Tyson's slug-like existence cost us at least 6 games throughout the season? At least 6 games that we would have won if he came in and played like the professional athlete we had expected him to be?


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

PC Load Letter said:


> Furthermore, I'd like to see Pax make a trade at some point where we can actually say he got even equal talent back and not just contracts that are good for the salary cap. So far, it's never been close.


you kidding? what about nate robinson for luol deng?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Do you not think that Tyson's slug-like existence cost us at least 6 games throughout the season?


Our worst period of the season was when Hinrich took a 2.5 week vacation this winter.

Loss of Curry / AD played a big role... most were concerned about how that would impact Chandler's game.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Yet we've seen our record go from 30 wins to 23 one season and 47 to 41 another. OUR RECORD declines because of these deals.




Why did you deliberately overlook the 23 to 47 jump? Do you not think we traded the best player both times in the two trades made that offseason?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Our worst period of the season was when Hinrich took a 2.5 week vacation this winter.


I'll lay some blame on Kirk as well. And Ben struggling to adjust to being a starter, and failing to adjust to the added scrutiny from other team's defenders.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> 47 to 41 has as much or more to do with Chandler's half season vacation from mattering as it does with any trades.
> 
> Do you not think that Tyson's slug-like existence cost us at least 6 games throughout the season?



Interesting that some people thought Chandler's presence won us a few games due to his last quarter defense.



I'm not a huge Chandler fan.........but we gave him away for very little.

Where are all the Eddy Curry lovers? Eddy brought us much more than Tyson Chandler. Does that mean that Chandler was the lesser player?

Eddy got us Tim Thomas, Mike Sweetney, Tyrus Thomas, A high number pick in 2007 and part of Khyrapa. Tyson got us PJ Brown, Griffin and 2 mid 2nd rounders.

It's easy to see, Eddy worth more than Tyson.............J/K.

Talk amongst yourselves.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> That's common sense. This idea that Paxson cannot screw up is really over the top. And this idea that anyone that looks at both sides, is some pax hater or perpetually negative is equally tiresome. If you don't want to debate this like an adult, instead of reverting to hyperbole and insults, simply ignore my post and we'll keep right on moving along.....


when there's a debateable issue then debate, overstating the obvious and bringing up "what ifs" isn't debate material; it's an opening for the post to be commented on; don't like the comment, TS.....

now back to the regularly scheduled rants...........


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'll lay some blame on Kirk as well. And Ben struggling to adjust to being a starter, and failing to adjust to the added scrutiny from other team's defenders.


Right... its the trials and tribulations of having a young team. You don’t always get consistent performances.

Chandler took the summer off to avoid injury, as many FAs do, and came in slow.... once he turned it on he rattled off several very strong performances and the team started playing better.

I'll go as far as saying his re-emergence is the catalyst that sparked the teams strong finish and recovery from the death spiral they were on.

Hinrich disappears, Gordon still falls down a lot, Chandler had a slow start, Curry / AD were replaced by "Sweets." 

Chandler adjusting to the new Curry-less, AD-less environment and producing was one of the main reasons, IMO, the team made the playoffs to begin with.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Chandler took the summer off to avoid injury, as many FAs do, and came in slow.... once he turned it on he rattled off several very strong performances and the team started playing better.
> 
> I'll go as far as saying his re-emergence is the catalyst that sparked the teams strong finish and recovery from the death spiral they were on.


Maybe. But the bottom line of the season is often criticized as a backwards step. A good deal of the reason for the overall worse record last year was our first have floundering. Whether Tyson had reason to take the summer off or not, his inability to play at a high level was one of the main reasons for our first half struggles.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> If our young guys can get so distracted by Smith, how good is their ability to not have other distractions hurt them as well.


I doubt that it's at all. It seems it was more about having a veteran that he could trust to play the spot.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'll lay some blame on Kirk as well. And Ben struggling to adjust to being a starter, and failing to adjust to the added scrutiny from other team's defenders.


In other words, rebuilding...because thats what we were doing at the time.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> when there's a debateable issue then debate, overstating the obvious and bringing up "what ifs" isn't debate material; it's an opening for the post to be commented on; don't like the comment, TS.....
> 
> now back to the regularly scheduled rants...........


Dude, the season is not here yet. EVERY SINGLE THING that has been said, short of the the actual details of the trades themselves is a big "WHAT IF". You really should NOT be debating at all if that's the case. All these projections of us being a championship contender, or for this spot or that spot in the east, *even speculation on how good these moves are going to pan out FOR US*, are based on big "what if's". What you need to do, is either:

a) Amend your statment to read: "bringing up what ifs that don't support my opinion" isn't debate material...blah blah blah...

b) Try not to be a hypocrite, acknowledge my right to have a dissenting opinion (even one I DID NOT EXPRESS) and simply comment on what I said, without the hyperbole, namecalling and misrepresentation, and move along, as I suggested.

Overstatement, requires that I continually state something over and over. I made the statement once in this thread, and in no other thread since the trade was announced, or even proposed. And it was a one liner at that.

Sounds like YOU are the one with sour grapes. I'm just asking (politely and for the last time) that if you are going to comment on my posts (which I don't mind, contrary to your suggestions), that you not misrepresent them or me. I hope that isn't too much trouble.

Have a good day.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Whether Tyson had reason to take the summer off or not, his inability to play at a high level was one of the main reasons for our first half struggles.



His loss of production, along with the lost production of Curry and AD.

Chandler adjusted. Its still unclear about how much should be attributed to the lack of Curry / AD versus off-season workouts / practice.

How Chandler would operate without Curry / AD was a major source of concern last off-season. As it turns out, justly so. 

Whatever. Ben Wallace is here now so we'll never have to worry about this kind of stuff anymore.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Yet we've seen our record go from 30 wins to 23 one season and 47 to 41 another. OUR RECORD declines because of these deals.


I guess we'll see if our record declines after trading Chandler and JR Smith. We had 41 wins last season. Maybe we'll improve.

And another of those seasons - the season immediately following the Crawford trade - we went from 23 to 47 wins. I think you accidentally forgot to mention that one.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

Pax's idea of who the best player is in a deal is less important than what that player can contribute in the environment he has established, which may be much different than other teams'. We know that, and we always have, so why is everyone so surprised?

I am amazed how much the value of Chandler has skyrocketed in the offseason. I guarantee that if it were May, everyone would want to dump him immediately. He has never been, by any stretch, a great player, or even a good one, but rather a guy that has zero value on the court and can't even stay on it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> Pax's idea of who the best player is in a deal is less important than what that player can contribute in the environment he has established, which may be much different than other teams'. We know that, and we always have, so why is everyone so surprised?
> 
> I am amazed how much the value of Chandler has skyrocketed in the offseason. I guarantee that if it were May, everyone would want to dump him immediately. He has never been, by any stretch, a great player, or even a good one, but rather a guy that has zero value on the court and can't even stay on it.


This I agree with.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> He has never been, by any stretch, a great player, or even a good one, but rather a guy that has zero value on the court and can't even stay on it.


That's just wrong. The season before last, he was a good player, to the point where few complained about his contract in the offseason.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> That's just wrong. The season before last, he was a good player, to the point where few complained about his contract in the offseason.


What about last year?

We can all see that he was only successful because he had Eddy and AD to cover up his deficiencies. Once he was on his own... he contributed nothing.

Tyson is not a good player, and was not. He had other people doing their thing to make him look good, as we can all see from what happened last year.

Years ago Larry Bird was a great player, let's sign him.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> Years ago Larry Bird was a great player, let's sign him.


In what alternate universe is a 23 year old player past his prime?


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> In what alternate universe is a 23 year old player past his prime?


Is this Tyson's prime?

Look at his playoff statistics: 1.8 PTS, 4.5 REB, 0.5 APG, 0.33 BPG, 17.3 MPG (foul trouble), *4.80 fouls per game.*

It doesn't matter if he's in his prime or not, because he's terrible either way.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> Is this Tyson's prime?
> 
> Look at his playoff statistics: 1.8 PTS, 4.5 REB, 0.5 APG, 0.33 BPG, 17.3 MPG (foul trouble), *4.80 fouls per game.*
> 
> It doesn't matter if he's in his prime or not, because he's terrible either way.


His best season he was far from terrible and was one of best players on a 47 win team. He was also one of the clutchest players in the league, according to an article on 82games.com


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

haha pax had the next two seasons booked
he could have done almost nothing and be considered a great GM

he ****ed up 3 times in a row


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> 47 to 41 has as much or more to do with Chandler's half season vacation from mattering as it does with any trades.
> 
> Do you not think that Tyson's slug-like existence cost us at least 6 games throughout the season? At least 6 games that we would have won if he came in and played like the professional athlete we had expected him to be?


He was just as sluggish in the 47 win season.

An awful lot of people seem to think that losing Curry hurt us simply because he was a post scorer and that we didn't replace that very well.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> Is this Tyson's prime?
> 
> Look at his playoff statistics: 1.8 PTS, 4.5 REB, 0.5 APG, 0.33 BPG, 17.3 MPG (foul trouble), *4.80 fouls per game.*
> 
> It doesn't matter if he's in his prime or not, because he's terrible either way.


Funny how you put the skinny guy that should be at the 4 up against Shaq and he fouls out real quick like huh? And I think Tyson had a better statistical playoff series against Washington didn't he?


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> Funny how you put the skinny guy that should be at the 4 up against Shaq and he fouls out real quick like huh? And I think Tyson had a better statistical playoff series against Washington didn't he?


_against Washington._ "Funny" how you either missed or refused to acknowledge my other post--that two years ago he only had a good season because others--AD, Curry--were there to cover up his deficiencies, and with them gone...


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

GB said:


> I doubt that it's at all. It seems it was more about having a veteran that he could trust to play the spot.



Is that what we got? I could've sworn we had 4 more capable players than Griffin. But, again, I'll trust in Paxson.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> _against Washington._ "Funny" how you either missed or refused to acknowledge my other post--that two years ago he only had a good season because others--AD, Curry--were there to cover up his deficiencies, and with them gone...


uh..if you mean cover up the deficency that he isn't a center and needs to play next to a big body to be effective then I agree wholeheartedly, still not sure how that makes him crap in someones eyes though.


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

Terrible trade for the Bulls...I can't believe you don't even give a guy w/ the Talent of J.R. a chance (20 games!!! or something) before you trade him for NOTHING!!!!


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

*Fire Paxson*


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> *Fire Paxson*



Everybody criticizes, but no one offers an alternative. For that, I am waiting.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I've seen alternatives suggested for Pax, with do nothing, twiddle your thumbs, remain idle, sit on your hands, and chill the blank out unless you can get some quality size and/or see what you have seeming to be some of the more popular ones recently.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

i think this is a good trade. u get griffin good veteran and defensive minded. and 2 2nd rounders for future trade bait. plus cap space to resign deng, ben, and noc next year.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> i think this is a good trade. u get griffin good veteran and defensive minded. and 2 2nd rounders for future trade bait. plus cap space to resign deng, ben, and noc next year.


JR's $2.1M salary for 07/08 is really going to break the bank.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I know that there are a lot of folks who want to keep Smith because of his "unlimited potential, freakish athleticism, etc." The more reasonable fans who want to keep Smith see him as the "new Pargo," the team's "designated chucker."

I suppose we shouldn't care about whether hanging on to Smith so he can play garbage minutes is the right thing to do for a young, talented, but immature player who still needs to learn his trade. I have problems with it, one altruistic and one practical. First, Smith has some talent and needs a chance to find out if he can play in this league. He should get the chance to show that he's more than Jannero Pargo. In practical terms, if he was relegated to the end of the bench or the inactive list, he's likely to have his head up his tail in practice and when called on to contribute. It's tough for a vet to play that kind of role. We shouldn't expect a 20 year old high school phenom to do it.

If we keep Smith, it's even money he gets released and we get nothing. Two second-rounders ain't much, but it's better than nothing.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> uh..if you mean cover up the deficency that he isn't a center and needs to play next to a big body to be effective then I agree wholeheartedly, still not sure how that makes him crap in someones eyes though.


Look at what he did last year. Anyone that needs so many complementary pieces is not a very good player, much less one as great as everyone thinks Tyson is.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> Look at what he did last year. Anyone that needs so many complementary pieces is not a very good player, much less one as great as everyone thinks Tyson is.


Everyone on a team needs complimentary pieces...thats why they play team basketball. Wallace is a great player but without a scorer his contributions would be meaningless, he is similar to Tyson in that regard. You underrate Chandler because he was playing out of position...pure and simple. Even so he still changed a lot of what teams tried to throw at us offensively by altering shots and playing good help defense. But you see, when you are a very good help defender and you suddenly have to play man defense your effectiveness is limited.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Sorry to interrupt the same old debate.

But.

*If we're getting Eisley's non-guaranteed contract to make room for signing Griffin...

1. We are overpaying Griffin BIG TIME. Please let this not be the case.

2. Ben Wallace is frontloaded bigger than we thought.*

Because with the cap number being what it is, I sure hope we're not paying Adrian Griffin so close to our cap number that we have to waive $1 million just to "make the space".

There's a third alternative, that the Bulls executive's comment was vague and fungible with a future move.

Sort of in this context: "when we S & T for Drew Gooden, we'll need Eisley's waived salary to make space for Griffin" and the first half was off-the-record.

Or something like that.

The trade is the trade. JR Smith is talent that wouldn't come off the bench, whether he was worthy to or not. Two 2nd rounders can translate into at least one role player or big banger or European player's rights that we can stash. It's not an even-talent trade but let's not go comparing this to trading Curry and AD for Tim Thomas and Sweetney. Because it's just not really worth getting very riled up about. What if one of those 2nd rounders becomes a hard-nosed wing specialist like Reyshawn Terry, and what if Thabo Sefolosha is the competent guard that he appears to be? Then how much have we really lost by not having JR Smith on our bench to play zero minutes?

Again, I'm not saying it's a great move, but it's mostly inconsequential. If JR Smith has a destiny to become an NBA star, it wasn't about to happen in Chicago. We would have been a stopover in his career, like Rafer Alston in Miami, or Ricky Davis in Cleveland.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Sorry to interrupt the same old debate.
> 
> But.
> 
> ...


I don't understand why if Smith is going to be an NBA star it couldn't happen in Chicago. Sure, we have Gordon & Sefolosha who can play the same spot but if Smith ends up being THAT good, which he very well could, that could send someone else to the bench, right? I mean, I don't know for sure that Smith will ever mature but he literally could be a top 15-20 player in the league one day, if he ends up being that good don't you think he might get the starting nod over Gordon? Anyway, it is all a moot point now but if he does become a star for Denver then I don't see why he couldn't have become a star for us and it makes Pax look not to bright for shipping him off for 2nd round picks. Of course, I guess the flip side of that is if he never matures and never becomes even as good as Ricky Davis (who is pretty good in his own right) then Pax uh...dealt him for 2 second rounders and the deal wasn't horrible.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't understand why if Smith is going to be an NBA star it couldn't happen in Chicago. Sure, we have Gordon & Sefolosha who can play the same spot but if Smith ends up being THAT good, which he very well could, that could send someone else to the bench, right? I mean, I don't know for sure that Smith will ever mature but he literally could be a top 15-20 player in the league one day, if he ends up being that good don't you think he might get the starting nod over Gordon? Anyway, it is all a moot point now but if he does become a star for Denver then I don't see why he couldn't have become a star for us and it makes Pax look not to bright for shipping him off for 2nd round picks. Of course, I guess the flip side of that is if he never matures and never becomes even as good as Ricky Davis (who is pretty good in his own right) then Pax uh...dealt him for 2 second rounders and the deal wasn't horrible.


I think you have to consider that Smith would never get to be THAT good without playing time.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> Everyone on a team needs complimentary pieces...thats why they play team basketball. Wallace is a great player but without a scorer his contributions would be meaningless, he is similar to Tyson in that regard. You underrate Chandler because he was playing out of position...pure and simple. Even so he still changed a lot of what teams tried to throw at us offensively by altering shots and playing good help defense. But you see, when you are a very good help defender and you suddenly have to play man defense your effectiveness is limited.


That's my point about Chandler. Sure he needs to be playing next to a big body, but his help D is very valuable, and I'm sure it played a part in having the #1 opponents' field goal % last year. People like to trash talk him because he was playing out of position all year. Kinda like me playing ball tonight...I just joined, and this will be my first game fielding for 10 years, and I'll most likely play short stop. I always played 3rd base due to a strong arm, but we have a good 3rd baseman already, so playing SS will be a little different and is making me nervous now that I think of it lol. If that's not a good example, how good would Yao be at PF? Not good at all. Just because someone is tall doesn't mean they're enterchangeable at PF/C or w/e.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I think you have to consider that Smith would never get to be THAT good without playing time.



Well they still practice and scrimmage and stuff like that. Plus, if Smith is consistently beating Gordon or Sefolosha in practice then he would see playing time, right?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> That's my point about Chandler. Sure he needs to be playing next to a big body, but his help D is very valuable, and I'm sure it played a part in having the #1 opponents' field goal % last year. People like to trash talk him because he was playing out of position all year. Kinda like me playing ball tonight...I just joined, and this will be my first game fielding for 10 years, and I'll most likely play short stop. I always played 3rd base due to a strong arm, but we have a good 3rd baseman already, so playing SS will be a little different and is making me nervous now that I think of it lol. If that's not a good example, how good would Yao be at PF? Not good at all. Just because someone is tall doesn't mean they're enterchangeable at PF/C or w/e.



Exactly. And considering Chandler played much much better when he wasn't asked to play out of position I have to think that he has a lot more value to the team doing that.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Exactly. And considering Chandler played much much better when he wasn't asked to play out of position I have to think that he has a lot more value to the team doing that.


i think this is true, but he's never had a consistent year. fans are happy to take him because he seems to show up in the last half of the season...during 1 quarter of an entire game. they forget 3 quarters of below avg play and they forget the 1st half of being a non-factor. 

even then he could never string a long a couple weeks of primetime production. he'd have a 20 and 18 game and then foul out in 6 mins the next game. i don't think pax wanted to have this team weather that kind of inconsistency. i think one of his goals is to get this team to play ball at a high level and with greater consistency. another is to maintain that consistency even if injuries occur. that means loading the bench with vets who acan step in and do their job as opposed to younger unpredictable players who might win you a game but could cost you the game just as well.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

GB said:


> Everybody criticizes, but no one offers an alternative. For that, I am waiting.


1. don't outbid yourself for chandler and sign him to too big a contract.

2. trade chandler around the earlier part of last season when his value was 
higher than NOTHING (which is what we get for him as pj retires after this year)

3. don't trade chandler yet, let his value rise (as it is now at it's all time low) 
and then get something higher than NOTHING for him.



however, i actually don't blame pax for this. as mike mcgraw alluded too,
this was obviously a money saving move. this was paxson's boss' move.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Well they still practice and scrimmage and stuff like that. Plus, if Smith is consistently beating Gordon or Sefolosha in practice then he would see playing time, right?


You are right in that this move does assume that JR won't likely be beating out Thabo or Gordon in practice. My projection was that he'd see Pargo-like minutes.

The truth is, Thabo would have some entitlement simply because we invested a draft pick into him and we'd want to commit to more development for him than for JR, who we'd have to develop and invest and then pay in an extension next year.

As for scrimmage and practice, things don't translate. First of all, Skiles has stated several times throughout last season that if only we could take what we do in practice and put it on the floor, we'd be winning a lot more games, or sometimes he'd state that we had a really good practice and then we'd still go out there and proceed to lose a game badly. Practice just doesn't equate to performance on the floor.

Moreover, and this isn't the best analogy, but I remember Dalibor Bagaric getting into it with Ron Adams (or whoever our assistant coach was) because Adams would push Dalibor hard in practice, then when Bagaric would finish strong with a post move or a power move to the basket, Adams would say "That's it! Now let's see that on the floor!" And a frustrated Dalibor would reply, "I never get to be out there in the first place." Can you believe that in some of the worst years of this franchise, a semi-talented young 7-footer (who is having a decent career in Europe now, by the way, and is still only 26 years old) could almost NEVER get playing time on one of the worst teams in the NBA?

The point is: sometimes it doesn't matter how good you are. If they aren't committed to you as a player, they aren't committed to you. The Bulls are committed to Ben Gordon, and they're committed to Thabo Sefolosha. It's easier to not waste a season in deciding to commit between JR Smith and Thabo and just make it an easy choice up front.

It's not the best talent-wise move, but stocking the team with as much talent as possible just doesn't seem to be the winning formula in the NBA anymore.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

*Re: DailyHeard : J.R. For Two 2nd's & Eisley*



YearofDaBulls said:


> Terrible.


I couldn't agree more!!! Lazy"EYE"zley? I mean the good thing is that he is another vet but come on Pax if your gonna get a vet get a good one that can do more then teach the game to our younger guys."HE" isn't a good player in any way shape or form!!! I don't like this move unless Pax has something up his sleve next summer.He may use the 2 second rounders a few current players and maybe our draft pick to try making a major trade.It might not take much to get it done eaither.Our players will all be more polished.But if even that was the case I still don't like it.Hey I wasn't too big on the Curry trade but it may have worked into our favour.It still remains to be seen.I will say this about PAXSON,he is getting as much as he possibly can for all his trades.WHY? because with all this depth I think it gives him more flexibility to trade and with these guys competing against each other for starting positions it shows Pax who hot and who not.That way when its time to move someone he gets rid of the right guy and gets us what we really need.All and all I'm torn.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

paxman said:


> 1. don't outbid yourself for chandler and sign him to too big a contract.
> 
> 2. trade chandler around the earlier part of last season when his value was
> higher than NOTHING (which is what we get for him as pj retires after this year)
> ...


Not alternative moves...an alternative GM who GM's the way they'd like Paxson to.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

GB said:


> Not alternative moves...an alternative GM who GM's the way they'd like Paxson to.


oh ok gotcha :biggrin: 

ah...me?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Exactly. And considering Chandler played much much better when he wasn't asked to play out of position I have to think that he has a lot more value to the team doing that.


For which team(s)? And why didn't they contact Pax and wow them with an enthusiastic offer?

As much p...p...p... well, you know, you'd think the league woulda knocked the door down and there'd be teeth marks on the hinges, since it was common knowledge he was being activley shopped.

Doesn't seem to be the case. Go figure.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> For which team(s)? And why didn't they contact Pax and wow them with an enthusiastic offer?
> 
> As much p...p...p... well, you know, you'd think the league woulda knocked the door down and there'd be teeth marks on the hinges.


According to McGraw ,there was strong demand for Chandler.

We know about the Hornets deal of course and the Murphy and Pietrus deal as well.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Seems like with every trade Pax makes he gives away more talented players
without getting much in return other than future cap space flexibility.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> According to McGraw ,there was strong demand for Chandler.
> 
> We know about the Hornets deal of course and the Murphy and Pietrus deal as well.


So, what...did Pax turn his nose up at the chance to obtain a big name player?

I heard about Murphy. Nobody wanted that. I know we wished P was part of the Murphy thing...I don't recall so much as an ESPN board rumor that it was ever realistically a possibility.

I'd love to get clarification from our friend Mike about what he meant by those comments about Chandler's "demand."

If there was legitimate interest in Chandler beyond what Pax got, I'd sure love to hear about it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I heard about Murphy. Nobody wanted that. I know we wished P was part of the Murphy thing...I don't recall so much as an ESPN board rumor that it was ever realistically a possibility.


It was mentioned pretty clearly by Chad Ford. Murphy and Pietrus for Chandler.

McGraw said there was strong demand for Chandler.

Murphy does have a long term, multi year deal though..........

Best salary dump available was the MO, IMO.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It was mentioned pretty clearly by Chad Ford. Murphy and Pietrus for Chandler.
> 
> McGraw said there was strong demand for Chandler.
> 
> ...


I like the French guy ok. Are you honestly crushed, if it was legitimately on the table, that Troy Murphy is not now a Bull?

Honestly? Really? Truly? No ****?

I'm not.


Give me PJ, his experience and his one and out contract 7 days out of 7 to get rid of that albatross contract which was Paxson's one and only true miscalculation as a GM.

It was a mistake, but nice save.

I do like Pietrus, and wanted him beofere, but the addition of Thabo makes him unnecessary.

So...what?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Give me PJ, his experience and his one and out contract 7 days out of 7 to get rid of that albatross contract which was Paxson's one and only true miscalculation as a GM.
> 
> It was a mistake, but nice save.


a nice save would be to trade chandler at a moment when his value was 
higher. right now, chandler's value is the lowest it's ever been.

I recall a time when an odom for chandler offer would be rejected.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If there was legitimate interest in Chandler beyond what Pax got, I'd sure love to hear about it.


Same here, I can't see how 2 potential trades shows that he was in much demand at all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I like the French guy ok. Are you honestly crushed, if it was legitimately on the table, that Troy Murphy is not now a Bull?
> 
> Honestly? Really? Truly? No ****?


Crushed? No. I think we're better off with Troy Murphy as our starting PF and Pietrus as the big guard than the current state of affairs. I’m not a huge fan of Murphy’s game, but he’s a solid player and would pair well with Wallace, IMO.

There was high demand for Chandler. We've heard of a couple of the offers that have leaked through the cracks. 

The better move, IMO, was to have Malik be the PJ Brown and keep Chandler. If you want to dump him next year, do it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

step said:


> Same here, I can't see how 2 potential trades shows that he was in much demand at all.


McGraw said he was in demand.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> McGraw said he was in demand.


Next Q&A I want details. I'd like to hear what Pax did to torpedo the franchise by passing on a sweet deal that was legitimately on the table.

I just gotta know.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Crushed? No. I think we're better off with Troy Murphy as our starting PF and Pietrus as the big guard than the current state of affairs. I’m not a huge fan of Murphy’s game, but he’s a solid player and would pair well with Wallace, IMO.
> 
> There was high demand for Chandler. We've heard of a couple of the offers that have leaked through the cracks.
> 
> The better move, IMO, was to have Malik be the PJ Brown and keep Chandler. If you want to dump him next year, do it.


What other offers "leaked through the cracks"? GS and NO was all I ever heard, and I like the Hornets deal better.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Next Q&A I want details. I'd like to hear what Pax did to torpedo the franchise by passing on a sweet deal that was legitimately on the table.
> 
> I just gotta know.


Well, given the somewhat secretive nature of discussions, you probably are not going to.

We know he was in demand. (McGraw)

There were also alternatives. Better ones, IMO. (Murphy and Pietrus). (Ford)

You have some details.

Also, there was the best alternative, which was to keep him for one year. No tax penalty. You can still dump him if you need to. Great rebounder / shot blocker coming off the bench, which was his best role. Good insurance for a Wallace injury. Good in a package with Deng/Noc or Gordon or the draft pick for a stud 4 as the season goes on…..

Listen, this was a salary dump. They wanted him off the books so they would not go much over the cap to resign the core 4. The deal Paxson took was probably the best salary dump available.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> What other offers "leaked through the cracks"? GS and NO was all I ever heard, and I like the Hornets deal better.



I was including the Hornets deal in "the couple."

One of them slipped through the cracks by having it actually happen. 

I think I remember you saying something about not liking the Murphy deal in another thread....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Crushed? No. I think we're better off with Troy Murphy as our starting PF and Pietrus as the big guard than the current state of affairs. I’m not a huge fan of Murphy’s game, but he’s a solid player and would pair well with Wallace.


Just based on Summer League play, which I admit is not a super strong endorsement, I am higher on Thabo than I am on Frenchy. And I'm a guy known for putting value on vets.

Murphy doesn't do much for me. He does put up some points, which we need from a big man, but I can't see him fitting into the team overall, and that contract is ridiculous for what you get. Why trade one albatross for another when you can shed the junk and get in position to get some real help long term?

Unless you are Dolan and the Knicks analyzing the situation, Paxson is making good decisions.

Dolan is probably shaking and scratching his head, though.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was including the Hornets deal in "the couple."
> 
> One of them slipped through the cracks by having it actually happen.
> 
> I think I remember you saying something about not liking the Murphy deal in another thread....


Did I? I can't seem to recall. Consider me glad we're Murphy-less.

:clap:


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Why trade one albatross for another when you can shed the junk and *get in position to get some real help long term*?


How does the trade get the team in position for long term help?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Murphy doesn't do much for me. He does put up some points, which we need from a big man, but I can't see him fitting into the team overall, and that contract is ridiculous for what you get. Why trade one albatross for another when you can shed the junk and get in position to get some real help long term?
> 
> Dolan is probably shaking and scratching his head, though.


Man, you love to exaggerate things.

Getting Murphy would put us nowhere near a Knicks level payroll. Nowhere even close.

It would finally put the most profitable franchise in the NBA in the upper quarter of NBA payrolls though. Not this year of course… this year we would still be pretty much where we are at now. 

Still way, way, way, way behind the Knicks. Way behind. Not even close.

Murphy is one of the best rebounders in the game and has a decent shot. He'd be a nice outside compliment to Wallace’s interior play, IMO. Not ideal... but better than PJ. PER of 16, does not turn the ball over much, crashes the boards, if he takes the 3 ball out of his arsenal, which he would once he's no longer playing Warriors ball, he puts it in the hoop at an efficient enough %. 

Wallace and Murphy would be the best rebounding 4/5 in the NBA.

And Murphy won't be getting is AARP card anytime soon either.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> He'd be a nice outside compliment to Wallace’s interior play


If we're really after an outside compliment to Wallace, we wouldn't need to look further than our bench, Nocioni. Not only does he have the range, he actually can play defense too.



> Wallace and Murphy would be the best rebounding 4/5 in the NBA.


Wallace is going to have a ball covering 2 positions at the same time.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Although I'm content with the Tyson trade, my ideal trade would have been Tyson for Boozer. I know Boozer has a long term contract, but for a WIN NOW atmosphere, he'd be a great fit. We would get a bruiser down low who has a polished offensive game. This would also allow Tyrus to develop more, and we would not require immediate impact from him. 

I'm over it. As much as I wanted to give JR a shot, realistically we knew it was not going to happen. At least he is going West so he won't come back and bite us in the a$$. I thing I will say about Pax, he is always looking to acquire 'assets.' Don't be surprised if he trades these 2nd rounders at the deadline in a package of scrubs (Sweetney, etc) for a viable 4/5. 

Time will tell how his moves turned out. I'm just hoping all 3 years of Adrian Griffin's contract are not set in stone. There better be a team option somewhere. I am okay with having Griffin. He is a good Vet to have. Just, lets keep him around for a year or two (max). Our guys should be veterans after this year. All of these guys have played a lot of college ball or international ball, are poised, and have a strong work ethic.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

step said:


> If we're really after an outside compliment to Wallace, we wouldn't need to look further than our bench, Nocioni. Not only does he have the range, he actually can play defense too.


A season of Noc guarding the opposing 4? Gulp. I love the guy but that's a tall order. He did do pretty well last season though.

Nocioni is not the rebounder that Murphy is either.

I think that Noc at the 4 will end up being our best lineup this year... but we're resigned to the fate of smallball.


Murphy is a net positive out there when he plays the 4.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05GSW12C.HTM


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I dunno where to put this. And I don't feel like starting a new thread. But, I assume we got slight more capspace available. Anyone know how much? And, most importantly, does anyone here think Pax has one more [big] move left? Possibly landing Gooden, Wilcox, or Ely?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> A season of Noc guarding the opposing 4? Gulp. I love the guy but that's a tall order. He did do pretty well last season though.
> 
> Nocioni is not the rebounder that Murphy is either.
> 
> ...


Obviously you know where I stand, but:

a) Noc on 4's might get a little ugly, but Murphy on 4's isn't much better.

b) Murphy is a superior rebounder (10 a game in 34 minutes per last year), but Noc isn't that far off - he averaged 8 a game in 29 MPG after the break last year. I think that increase is directly related to the fact that he played more 4 as the season went on. If he keeps that up the difference is effectively meaningless.

c) If we're playing a grind it out team with a big 4 we can always stick PJ Brown on him, and Malik Allen in stretches.

d) 82games.com doesn't think all that much of Noc, but it does have the 4 as his best position on defense.

e) It appears to me upon viewing the link you provided that Murphy is a net -0.5 as 4. Am I missing something?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> b) Murphy is a superior rebounder (10 a game in 34 minutes per last year), but Noc isn't that far off - he averaged 8 a game in 29 MPG after the break last year. I think that increase is directly related to the fact that he played more 4 as the season went on. If he keeps that up the difference is effectively meaningless.


I'm going by rebound rate. Murphy dominates Nocioni.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_REB.htm

Murphy #12, Nocioni #45.

Perhaps these numbers would change playing next to wallace?



jbulls said:


> e) It appears to me upon viewing the link you provided that Murphy is a net -0.5 as 4. Am I missing something?



I was looking at Murphy's PER at the 4 versus his opponent's PER, not the net48 #.


Chandler is redundant b/c of Wallace, Murphy is redundant b/c of Noc. I guess the team is all set!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I can't believe you all are arguing over how Mike would answer this, given that he already did answer it!



> Q: As you've alluded to in several pieces, there were multiple variations of deals involving Tyson Chandler "out there." We've heard about the one involving Marion and the one involving Troy Murphy. Were there any others? Were any of these other deals ever close to happening?
> 
> A: It’s always hard to tell how close anything was to happening, since there is so much discussion going on. *I do think if the Bulls did not get Ben Wallace, they would have signed Przybilla and probably traded Tyson for a scorer, such as Carlos Boozer, Al Harrington or maybe Marcus Camby.*




So there are a few names beside's Murphy. Boozer, Harrington, Camby. Each makes some sense (although Camby quite a bit less as a scorer, IMO). From what I read last year, the Hawks were interested in making an offer to Chandler, but he spurned them and wouldn't even go visit them.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hey, I hate to quote myself, but...

Isn't anyone wondering about why we'd have to cut cap space to sign Griffin?

Doesn't that mean:

1. Griffin's making a good load of money,

2. Ben's contract is VERY front-loaded, 

3. Another move is pending and "making space for Griffin" actually means "after our next big move that will eat into our cap space, making space for Griffin"?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Showtyme said:


> 3. Another move is pending and "making space for Griffin" actually means "after our next big move that will eat into our cap space, making space for Griffin"?


I'm not sure i understand what you mean by this?


----------



## MVP_23 (Jan 29, 2006)

why do u guys seem happy about this, this is terrible for you guys JR has All star potential and ur tradin him for a scrub and 2 other potential scrubs.........cmon get wat he'z worth man


----------



## Treal City (Jul 2, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> Agree with the bolded part, but I disagree with most of the rest.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not going to complain about getting Adrian Griffin. What happens on the court in games is only a fraction of what goes on. All the other time a team is together- practice, travel, meetings, etc, we don't see, but it's important too. And I think he'll be very good in those aspects. That's why I wanted him last year.
> 
> ...



JR SMITH has been through Hurricanes and losing now he has a proven coach and a winning playoff team in a big market this is a different situation. I mean he is still 20 years old a baby. He needs to win!


----------



## Treal City (Jul 2, 2006)

MVP_23 said:


> why do u guys seem happy about this, this is terrible for you guys JR has All star potential and ur tradin him for a scrub and 2 other potential scrubs.........cmon get wat he'z worth man


 :clap: :clap: :cheers:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

MVP_23 said:


> why do u guys seem happy about this, this is terrible for you guys JR has All star potential and ur tradin him for a scrub and 2 other potential scrubs.........cmon get wat he'z worth man



What is he worth? Brent Barry?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

paxman said:


> I'm not sure i understand what you mean by this?



Well, the Bulls exec just noted that Eisley's waived contract will be needed to make cap space for Griffin. But maybe that's not a closed transaction.

Maybe it's more like "after we finish the Next Big Move for us, we'll need to clear some cap space to sign Griffin". See what I mean? It's still a true statement.

Anyway. It appears that no one else seems to care that this cap space move might actually be a cap space move, and how terrible that might be if it's true, because it probably means we're overpaying Griffin. If we're just uber-frontloading Ben Wallace's contract, I have no problem with that... better we pay him while he's on top of his game than pay him more and more as his game declines more and more. But if it's the fact that Griffin is going to be signed for 3 years, $8.5 million starting near Duhon money, I'll be PISSED. I'm happy to get Griffin, but there's other guys we could have made a run at, guys that we actually need.


----------



## Treal City (Jul 2, 2006)

jr smith is rjeffesque potential!


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Sham said:


> What is he worth? Brent Barry?


I've heard this aid a few times. I'd take Barry over Griffin so....?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Hustle said:


> I've heard this aid a few times. I'd take Barry over Griffin so....?


I wouldn't. He's paid more, has declined rapidly, doesn't have a great history with this place, and doesn't exude the jib that Griffin does. 

We also got the two seconds. Useful tools. Wouldn't have happened in the Barry deal.

So yes, I would rather have this deal.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> It's still early, but for now, the Nuggets are worse off at shooting guard than they were when the season ended, which was pretty bad. They are about to acquire J.R. Smith, another shooting guard who is not a shooter - and whom New Orleans/Oklahoma City gave up on two years after using a first-round pick to draft him straight out of high school.
> 
> Ignore the hype. Smith's current NBA market value is 33-year-old Howard Eisley (whose usefulness lies in being cut at no cost) and a couple of future second-rounders. That's not a lot of value.
> 
> Smith is an athlete, which is what made him a first-round flier in the first place. But he's a 39 percent shooter in the NBA, which makes Buckner look like Ray Allen.


Well...until proven otherwise, Tyrus is more athlete than basketball player too.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_4851886,00.html


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

> "I'm a fan favorite," J.R. Smith said. "I get up and down the court. I like to dunk. . . . I'm sure (Nuggets fans will) love me." Smith appears to be the Nuggets' future shooting guard. He said Monday he expects to be in Denver for a news conference Thursday, with a trade completed by then.
> 
> -Rocky Mountain News


I'm only 5'8 so lucky for me I don't like to dunk. :clown:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This trade makes sense, because after signing Griffin (for 1.4 million I've been told) we'll have about 2.45 in capspace after signing the rookies.

So thats:

Capspace: 2.45
Duhon: 3.02
Sweets: 2.70
Total: 8.17

So roughly we could make a starting offer of 8 million for Gooden, and with max raises thats roughly 58 million/6 years.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

sloth said:


> This trade makes sense, because after signing Griffin (for 1.4 million I've been told) we'll have about 2.45 in capspace after signing the rookies.
> 
> So thats:
> 
> ...


Was it Skiles or Pax that said they thought Sef was going to be a point.? Anyway I really hope we get this done. I think it's a very good trade for both teams, all things considered(Clevland has 3 guys already making a ton each). 

Did you consider that the rookies will probably get a little more than scale when they sign? or does it even matter, because we can make the gooden trade before therookie signings, so that the rooks are only against the cap for scale?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Goodens definitely a good fit for our team, I'd assume he'd find his way into the starting lineup. We'd probaly sign Aaron Miles as a replacement, or mayble Pargo.

But anyways, our depth chart would probaly look like this.

PG-Kirk Hinrich/Thabo Sefolosha/(aaron miles/jannero pargo)
SG-Ben Gordon/Thabo Sefo/Adrian Griffin
SF-Andres Nocioni/Luol Deng/Viktar Khryapa
PF-Drew Gooden/Tyrus Thomas/Malik Allen
C- Ben Wallace/PJ Brown/(Antonio Davis/Luke SChenscher)

I think Gooden could be the piece to put us over the top into championship contention seriously.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> This trade makes sense, because after signing Griffin (for 1.4 million I've been told) we'll have about 2.45 in capspace after signing the rookies.
> 
> So thats:
> 
> ...


Apparently we don't have any cap space left, otherwise we would have just signed Griffin outright. None of this waiting for PJ and JR to pass their physicals... Eisley to pass through waivers.

By my calculations, Wallace probably has a starting salary this year of $17.4 million. I posted this in the Ben Declining thread, but it seems to have been overlooked...



Based on the following snippet from Marlen's column about Griffin, I think we can figure out how much Wallace is making this year. She says Griffin is set to make about $1.4 million this year, and in order to make room under the cap, JR Smith's $1.0 million deal had to be jettisoned (she says JR's deal is at $1.3, but Hoopshype says $1.0). With the cap set at $53.1 million, and $34.3 million committed according to Hoopshype (including JR; not including Griffin and Wallace; TT and Thabo at rookie scale), that means Wallace is making at least $17.4 million this year.

In order for Griffin's $1.4 million deal to not fit under the cap, our cap number had to be at least $51.7 million, meaning Wallace is making at least $17.4 million by my calculations. FYI, Hoopshype has him at $16 million, though. Please correct me if you find any flaws.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

MVP_23 said:


> why do u guys seem happy about this, this is terrible for you guys JR has All star potential and ur tradin him for a scrub and 2 other potential scrubs.........cmon get wat he'z worth man


apparently, Pax was offered six future #1 picks in a 4 team deal in return for JR. Unfortunately for Bulls fans, Pax turned that deal down for two #2s, Howard Eisley and a can of Foldgers Crystals


----------

